Section V.--Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God,

before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his

eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good

pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting

glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight

of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any

other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him

thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

I call attention especially to the fact that those elected to

salvation owe that election to God's mere free grace and love, without

any foresight, on the part of God, of their faith or good works or

perseverance in either of them. The election is an act of the arbitrary

will of God. In fact, the Presbyterians' own explanation of this

part of the creed is: Election to salvation "is not conditioned upon

foreseen faith or good works or perseverance, but that in each case it

rests upon sovereign grace and personal love according to the secret

counsel of his [God's] will." No wonder that Raban, Bishop of Mayence,

when writing to Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, when this same doctrine

was rising in the church, said: "To what purpose shall I labor in the

service of God? If I and predestined to death, I shall never escape

from it; and if I am predestined to life, even though I do wickedly, I

shall, no doubt, arrive at eternal rest!"

The rank absurdity of this doctrine was justly satirized by burns in

the opening stanza of his "Holy Willie's Prayer:"

"O, Thou wha in the heavens dost dwell,

Wha, as it pleaseth best thysel',

Sends ane to heaven and ten to hell

A' for thy glory,

An' no for ony guid or ill

They've done afore thee."

In application of this principle of election and reprobation to

mankind, those who founded it had to meet the difficult problems as

to how it would affect that very great portion of mankind who died in

infancy; and, however heartless the men of those times may appear to

us of modern days, it must be said of them that they had at least the

courage of their convictions; and they said in Chapter X of the creed:

Section III.--Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and

saved by Christ through the spirit, who worketh when, and where,

and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are

incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The very use of the expression "elect infants" implied that there were

infants not elect, whose fate, in all reason, under this creed, would

be the same as that of adults, who were not of the elect; and hence,

the popular understanding that the Presbyterian creed implied the

damnation of infants; and it should be remembered, in this connection,

that the Presbyterian idea of damnation is an ever-lasting punishment

in hell from which there is no hope of deliverance. This implication

as to infants was not denied, for a long time, by those who accepted

the creed; but, being oppressed with the apparent injustice of the

damnation of innocent babes because not among the elect, Presbyterians

began to offer the explanation, early in our last century, that they

believed all infants dying in infancy were elect; and such has been the

agitation upon that question, both within and without the Presbyterian

church, that at last the assembly at Los Angeles, authorized to speak

for the Presbyterian church, declares, in effect, that their belief is

that all infants dying in infancy are of the elect. This is certainly

very gracious on their part. It makes one feel a little more easy

regarding the fate of innocent babes, now that we know that children

dying in infancy, according to the reformed Presbyterian creed, are

among the elect! Still we cannot but deplore the fact that many

thousands of mothers, within the membership of the Presbyterian church,

even, have mourned their innocent babes dying in infancy as among the

probably eternally lost; but it is refreshing to see the indication of

progress even among our Presbyterian friends, and it is to be hoped

that the light will continue to grow in their minds, until they shall

not only see the impropriety of leaving the salvation of infants dying

in infancy, in doubt, but shall correct, also, this other abominable

part of their creed respecting election in general. The amendment of

the creed respecting the fate of infants helps it but a very little.

The damnation of a good man, because he is not of the elect, is just as

outrageous as the damnation of an innocent babe. In some respects of

the case, it is even worse. Here, we will say, is a man who throughout

his life has made every effort to realize, in his living, the lofty

ideal of possessing "clean hands and a pure heart;" who entertains only

aspirations that are noble, and performs deeds only that are honorable;

who in the relationships of life, as son, brother, husband, father, and

citizen, discharges, with reasonable fidelity, all his duties in these

relations, and, as nearly as man can while under the effects of the

fall and pestered with human inclinations to perversity, leads what is

recognized as a virtuous life. Yet, if not of the elect, this man is

doomed eternally, and his struggling for the attainment of his lofty

ideals and his noble life, avail him nothing in the way of warding

off damnation; because, forsooth, he is not of the elect, and hence

must perish everlastingly. That such conclusion is forced upon those

accepting the Presbyterian creed, is evidenced from chapter X, Section

IV of that creed:

Section IV.--Others not elected, although they may be called by

the ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of

the Spirit, [i. e., awakened aspirations for righteousness] yet

they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved,

much less can men not professing the Christian religion be saved in

any other way whatsoever, be they ever so diligent to frame their

lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion

they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, is very

pernicious, and to be detested.

That is to say, however righteous or honorable men may be, and though

they accept, as far as in them lies the power, the Christian faith,

yet, if not among the elect, their doom is sealed, and that doom is

everlasting damnation from the comfortable presence of God! I suggest

that our friends consider their creed again, and pass a resolution that

all such men as the supposed righteous man just now described are, of

the elect, as well as infants dying in infancy.

Equally necessary is it that they should reform their creed with

reference to the fate of the heathen. For, in the application of

the principle laid down in the section of the creed last quoted is

relegated to eternal damnation all "men not professing the Christian

religion." In explaining the application of this section of the

creed to such persons, in an authoritative work on Presbyterianism,

("Commentary of the Confession of Faith with Questions for Theological

Students and Bible Classes," by the Rev. A. A. Hodge, D. D.,) it is

said:

The heathen in mass, with no single definite and unquestionable

exception on record, are evidently strangers to God, and going down

to death in an unsaved condition. The presumed possibility of being

saved without a knowledge of Christ remains, after eighteen hundred

years, a possibility illustrated by no example.

When it is remembered that of the population of the earth at present,

after two thousand years of Christianity, less than one-third of the

population of the world is even nominally Christian, while more than

two-thirds are outside of any form of Christianity whatsoever; and when

it is further remembered that in past ages the proportion of Christians

to the population of the world has been very much less than this;

and when it is further remembered that, in Presbyterian ideas of the

gospel, there are no means by which the gospel may be applied except in

this present life, and those who fail to receive the gospel here are

eternally lost, we are not much surprised at the infidel who draws the

conclusion, when contemplating the doctrines of this abominable creed,

that, if this creed be true, then God, when he created the human race,

was but creating, in the main, fuel for the flames of hell out of human

souls! Is it any wonder, if other creeds of divided Christendom contain

similar doctrines, or other doctrines which as flagrantly violate

every conception of the relative claims of mercy and justice, that God

declared the creeds of men an abomination in his sight? I told you in

the beginning of my remarks that I would not have time to examine even

this one creed in detail, but could only point out one or two items

that would tend to demonstrate the truth of the Lord's revelation to

Joseph Smith respecting the abomination of the creeds of men; and,

having done this, I must stop, as our time has expired. But I cannot

close these remarks in any other than in a hopeful spirit. I say again,

it is encouraging to see our Presbyterian friends amending their creed;

and I sincerely trust that the light which has apparently begun to dawn

upon their minds will grow brighter and brighter unto the perfect day;

until they will not only change their creed respecting the fate of

infants, but will go on adding line upon line and precept upon precept,

here and there eliminating that which is so glaringly abominable, until

at last they shall be so accustomed to the light of truth that they

will be able to look upon the fullness thereof as it is revealed in the

gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days, through the Prophet Joseph

Smith.

The Lord bless you, and also the Presbyterians, in the name of Jesus

Christ. Amen.

VII.

Relations of Church and State: Religious Liberty in America.

FOREWORD.

The writer was asked to speak upon "The Relations of the Church to

the State" at a "Silver Banquet" given at the Knutsford Hotel in May,

1895. The Utah State Constitutional Convention had recently adjourned;

and a very widely attended Convention in the interest of the free and

unlimited coinage of silver by the government of the United States had

just come to a close; the banquet at which the writer's remarks were

made was given in honor of the members of that Convention.

There were present, among many other notable guests, Governor Rickards,

of Montana, Ex-Governor Alva Adams, of Colorado, Senator Clark of

Wyoming, Governor McConnell of Idaho, Ex-Congressman Bartine of

Nevada, General Thomas J. Clunie of California, General Penrose, then

in command at Fort Douglas, Utah, Governor Prince of New Mexico, Hon.

Wharton Barker of Pennsylvania. Among the gentlemen of note from Utah

were Governor Caleb B. West, Mayor Baskin, then Congressman, afterwards

Senator, Joseph L. Rawlins, and Judge C. C. Goodwin, toast-master.

The question of the relations of the Church and the State had lung

been debated in Utah, and now that Utah was upon the eve of beginning

her career as a sovereign state in the American Union, the subject

was of considerable interest, locally, largely because it had been

very generally charged that in Utah there was grave danger, if not of

a union of Church and State, then of state domination by the Mormon

Church, and doubtless the subject and speaker were chosen for these

reasons.

I.

"The Relation of the Church to the State."

The speaker was introduced by Judge Goodwin, Toast-Master, who said:

"The committee that prepared this programme, having an idea that

something would be needed to bring men back to sober thoughts,

after Governor McConnell's speech, ["Is There Any Light?" was

Governor McConnell's subject] made the next sentiment, "Church and

State," and they put down as the speaker Utah's most eloquent son.

It gives me extreme pleasure to introduce to you the Hon. B. H.

Roberts."

Mr. Roberts spoke as follows:

Honorable Toast-Master and Gentlemen--I think for the first time in

my life I appreciate the feelings of the young shepherd, David, when

Israel's proud king placed upon him his own plated armor; gave him a

shield and a great spear with which to fight Goliath. David said: "I

cannot go with these; for I have not proved them." He appeared before

his antagonist in the simple garb of the shepherd, with his sling and

a few smooth stones. And so, after the very flattering introduction

that has been given me by the honorable toast-master of the evening, I

feel myself unworthy to bear the honored title that he has given me. I

disclaim it altogether and say in simple truth, I am not an orator, I

am not eloquent, but, as you all know, "a plain, blunt man," capable

only of speaking those things that you already know. I therefore most

humbly beg to disclaim the proud place that the introduction of the

toast-master would assign me.

When I was informed that I would be expected to speak upon this staid,

and I may say threadbare subject, "Church and State," it appeared

to me that the committee who had arranged this programme had gone

somewhat out of the way in selecting such a subject; but I defer to

their judgement and am willing to say it is all right, but ask that you

gentlemen of the banquet will not hold me responsible for inviting your

"sober" consideration to such a theme in the midst of such temptations

to be otherwise than sober.

There are three relations which the church and the state may sustain

to each other. First, the state may dominate the church; second,

the church may dominate the state; and, third, church and state may

occupy separate spheres, and be absolutely divorced the one from the

other. Those who argue for the rightfulness of the first relationship

will tell you that the state is not within the church, but the church

is within the state; they will tell you that it is the state which

rules the land, that wages war, that levies taxes and governs at

least the external destinies of the citizen, and that whenever the

religious creeds cease to be individual and result in associations,

those organizations come within the proper cognizance and authority

of the state; and that the state has a right to draw the lines of

ecclesiastical policy, and to fix the constitution of the church as

knowing what is best for the general society.

Those who contend for the second relationship--that the church should

dictate to the state--argue that the church, as the representative

of the divine authority, is also the superior authority; that indeed

the state itself is but an outgrowth of that superior authority; that

as the moon but reflects the light of the sun, so the state borrows

whatsoever of authority it possesses from the spiritual authority--the

church. Furthermore, they insist that in the matter of chronological

order itself, the church antedates the state; it is the first society,

primitive and eternal, and hence has the true sovereignty; that the

state is properly but the instrument of the church to execute the

divine decrees.

Those who contend that the church and state should exist separately,

recognize the great truth that the church and the state have

independent and different spheres. There is no proper connection

between the two, and no necessity exists for interference one with

the other. They contend that the church should exist unnoticed by the

state; that religious creeds should approximate or separate according

to the inclinations of the church members.

Mankind by the test of experience, has learned the relative value of

these several relationships which may exist between the church and

the state, and now, in the light of that experience, let me consider

the virtues and vices of each. For the purpose of illustration I need

go no further back than the time when Constantine became the patron

of the Christian religion and elevated the sect from the condition

of a persecuted society to the state religion of the great empire.

He invited the Christian ministers to his court, gave them a seat at

his table in the palace, loaded them with honors and riches, but was

careful himself to draw the line of ecclesiastical policy and pattern

the church organization very much after the constitution of the civil

government of Rome. As a reward for these favors the ministry of

the church stood in humble attitude at the foot of the throne. They

overlooked the shortcomings of their great patron, guilty of putting

to death without just cause a wife, a son, and in violation of his

plighted faith, his brother-in-law.

There is another period in church history where the state becomes the

patron of the church and dominated it. That occurred during the great

"reformation" of the sixteenth century when Henry VIII, displeased

because the pope of Rome refused to sever the bond of marriage

between himself and the faithful Catherine of Aragon, took affairs

ecclesiastical within his own realm into his own hands and founded a

state church. In this period of history we find repeated just what

was done in the case of Constantine. Notwithstanding the cruelties,

the debauchees and the murders of Henry the ministers of Christ still

awarded to him the title, "Defender of the Faith."

I mention these circumstances because they exhibit the vice of the

state dominating a church. That vice consists in this, that such a

relationship bridles the tongues of God's ministers, who are commanded

to reprove sin in high places and demand the same moral standard of

the prince that is demanded of the pauper. Whenever the ministry of a

church stands in dread of the temporal power, when by it they may be

unfrocked, it will be a rare thing indeed to find men of sufficient

moral courage to be true to the divine commandment in preaching and

executing the word of God; hence the mischief of state domination of

the church.

One of the wise men of the east, Aesop, tells the story of a camel who

in the midst of a terrible storm on the desert, begged his Arabian

master to allow him the privilege of putting his head within the tent

out of the storm. The indulgent master granted his request, but no

sooner did the camel get his head into the tern than he crowded in his

shoulders also, and then the whole huge bulk of his body, and, turning

about, he kicked his master out of the tent into the storm. So did

the Christian ecclesiastical power with the civil power in the Roman

empire. Papal Rome rose upon the ruins of pagan Rome, and for centuries

ruled the nations with a rod of iron. The evils growing out of the

church dictating the state are to be read in that period of darkness

which covered our earth from the fifth to the sixteenth centuries.

It is not necessary for me in detail to point out those evils. It will

be sufficient if I call your attention in a general way to the vice

arising from this relationship. That vice consists in this--that such

a relationship between church and state tends to debase and weaken the

ministry of Christ. All ministers of the gospel are not equal to the

virtue of their great Master. When the evil prince of this world stood

before the Lamb of God and, with a master hand, drew aside the curtain

which covered the glory of the nations and pointed to them in all their

splendor and wealth, and said, "All these will I give thee, only fall

down and worship me;" the divine man could look the tempter in the face

and say: "Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship

the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." The ministers of the

church today are not tempted to this extent. The arch-enemy of men's

souls knows too well that it is not necessary. From the back door of

the parsonage our ministers may see enough to seduce them from the work

of the Divine Master; yea, so much of the yellow gold of this earth as

may be clutched thus in the hand may sometimes be sufficient for their

seduction.

When you make it possible for the state to dominate the church, such

is the glamor and sheen of temporal power that men are willing and do

forget the glories of eternity that they may revel in the pleasures

and powers of this world for a season. Hence it becomes necessary to

preserve the integrity of God's ministry that you separate the church

so far from the state as to make the dictation of the latter by the

former impossible, and thus lessen the temptation of the ministry to

neglect the things of heaven in order to dabble in the affairs of state.

I have already said that those who contend for the separation of church

and state recognize separate spheres for those two powers to operate

in. This idea, I may say, had its second birth in the great revolution

of the sixteenth century, sometimes called the "Reformation." John

Calvin was a leader in that doctrine in his day. John Knox followed

him, and there was a hot contest in the old world for the maintenance

of this doctrine--not for the good of the state so much as for the good

of the church--for these champions held that in order for the ministers

of God to perform well and faithfully their duties they must be removed

from fear of interference of kings and potentates.

But the most interesting period of the struggle for the separation

of church and state is to be found in the history of the founding of

our own great nation. After the war of the American revolution the

statesmen of that period were confronted with the work of forming a

government for our country. There were men who contended that God

ought to be put in the Constitution, and an establishment of religion

instituted. But the revolutionary fathers looked over the whole land

and found that the people were divided beyond the hope of union into

one great and united church; and that to make a state church out of

any one of the sects would be an act of injustice to all the rest--a

thing they were unwilling to perpetrate; and they solved the problem by

crystallizing this doctrine of separation of church and state in that

declaration written in the constitution of our land, which says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

And thus we travel the circle of human experience and come back at

last to stand face to face with the grand doctrine taught by the great

founder of the Christian church, who, on the occasion of men seeking to

embroil him in a conflict with the civil powers of this world, said:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the

things which are God's."

That declaration, falling from the lips of him who spoke as never man

spake, and that declaration in the American constitution, have as their

source the same inspiration.

In years that are past, in the hearts of many, there existed a fear

that here in Utah we should be confronted with this question of the

relation of church and state; and to state it frankly I may say that

the fear that there would be a violation of this American principle

respecting the separation of church and state has been one of the

causes which has delayed so long the act of justice to the people of

Utah--her admission into the American Union.

I want to say to these honored guests of ours, so soon to separate from

us and go back to their homes, that you may tell your people that here

in Utah we have solved the problem; and that which we have written in

our state constitution, and which we mean to keep inviolate, is in

harmony with what is written in the great national Constitution of our

country.

There is one phase of this question which I think sometimes is not

sufficiently considered; and that is that it is not always the fault of

the church that there is a union of church and state or ecclesiastical

interference in political and civil affairs. There are politicians and

political parties who are not above fawning and crawling at the feet

of ecclesiastical influence. Somehow or other the calamities attendant

upon ecclesiastical interference in politics never appear to them

until that influence is exercised in behalf of the "other fellow" or

the other political party. Let our politicians stand erect, let our

political parties resent ecclesiastical influence when exerted in their

behalf as they would resent it when exercised against them, and I

promise you that in the new state of Utah we shall have no difficulty

growing out of ecclesiastical domination of our political affairs.

You are extremely patient with me in these rather extended remarks

of mine, but I am done with my subject proper. If, however, you will

still be patient with me, there are a few words that I wish to say to

the gentlemen who constitute the Silver Convention, that has now so

happily, and as I believe so effectually, accomplished the purposes

for which it was convened. I know not, gentlemen, whether ever before

you have felt the inspiration that comes from contemplation of a

missionary enterprise; but it seems to me that if a cause righteous and

just is necessary to give true inspiration to men, then, indeed, how

that inspiration ought to shine forth from you in word and in action.

To labor in the interests of the toiling masses is worthy of laudable

Ambition's highest aspirations.

And now may I not say for you, though but a layman, and looking upon

you and your work from the ranks of the people, may I not invoke the

power divine for you, saying, What in them is dark, illumine; what is

low, raise and support; that to the height of this great argument they

may assert the patriotism of their intentions, and justify the demand

that we all make, that silver shall be restored to its place in the

monetary system of the United States.

Judge Goodwin (toast-master)--A few of you who read the Bible

(laughter) will remember that when David said that the work set before

him was too great for him to perform, he still had the sling under

his sheepskin, with which he slew Goliath, and when my friend, in his

native and honest modesty, said that too much had been perhaps expected

of him, I knew he had the sling.

FOREWORD.

The following remarks were prepared for a Jefferson dinner, at the

Commercial Club rooms in Salt Lake City, in April, 1907; and afterwards

published in the Salt Lake Herald, of May 14th.

The question of the relations of church and state, or rather the

question of the domination of the state by the church, was still

agitated in Utah. The Mormon Church at its Annual Conference in April

of the above year had issued an "_Address to the World_" in which its

attitude on the question was once more stated, and stated with greater

clearness and emphasis than ever before.

It was in the expectation that some reference would be made to this

local question that the subject of the following address was selected.

In order that the attitude of the Mormon Church with reference to the

relations of the church and the state may be present to the readers'

mind, while considering the following paper. I quote that part of the

aforesaid Address upon the subject:

"In answer to the charge of disloyalty, founded upon alleged

secret obligations against our government, we declare to all men

that there is nothing treasonable or disloyal in any ordinance,

ceremony, or ritual of the Church.

"The overthrow of earthly governments; the union of church and

state; domination of the state by the church; ecclesiastical

interference with the political freedom and rights of the

citizen,--all such things are contrary to the principles and policy

of the Church, and directly at variance with the oft-repeated

declarations of its chief presiding authorities and of the Church

itself, speaking through its general conferences. The doctrine of

the Church on the subject of government, stands as follows:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and

magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

Such is our acknowledgement of duty to civil governments. Again:

"We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers

and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as

will administer law in equity and justice should be sought for and

upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic), or the will of

the sovereign.

"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil

government; whereby one religious society is fostered and another

proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights

of its members, as citizens, denied."

With reference to the laws of the Church, it is expressly said:

"Be subject to the powers that be until he comes whose right it is

to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

"'Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws

of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth."

That is to say, no law or rule enacted, or revelation received by the

Church, has been promulgated for the State. Such laws and revelations

as have been given are solely for the government of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine

of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of

church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and

independence of the individual in the performance of his political

duties. If, at any time, there has been conduct at variance with this

doctrine, it has been in violation of the well settled principles and

policy of the Church.

We declare that from principle and policy, we favor:

The absolute separation of church and state;

No domination of the state by the church;

No church interference with the functions of the state;

No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the

free exercise of religion;

The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of

ecclesiastical authority in political affairs;

The equality of all churches before the law.

The reaffirmation of this doctrine and policy, however, is predicated

upon the express understanding that politics in the states where our

people reside, shall be conducted as in other parts of the Union;

that there shall be no interference by the State with the Church, nor

with the free exercise of religion. Should political parties make

war upon the Church, or menace the civil, political, or religious

rights of its members as such,--against a policy of that kind, by

any political party of set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent

right of self-preservation for the Church, and her right and duty to

call upon her children, and upon all who love justice, and desire the

perpetuation of religious liberty, to come to her aid, to stand with

her until the danger shall have passed. And this, openly, submitting

the justice of our cause to the enlightened judgement of our fellow

men, should such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace

and confidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of

all religions.

II.

Jefferson's Contribution to Religious Liberty in America.

On the plain headstone that marks the grave of Thomas Jefferson, after

his name are these words:

Author

of the Declaration of

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE,

of

The Statute of Virginia

For Religious Freedom, and

Father of the University

of Virginia.

This inscription Mr. Jefferson himself wrote out. It evidently

indicates what he regarded as the three most worthy achievements of

his life; and when it is seen that next to being the author of the

Declaration of American Independence, he prides himself on being the

author of this "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom," your

committee may be pardoned, I think, for placing on the program for

this evening the subject I am all too briefly to discuss--Jefferson's

contribution to religious freedom in America.

Men in their less serious moods may jest as they please at religion,

but after all it is the most serious business of life. No really great

mind is dead to its influence. And at some time or other in their

experience, men who are great of soul seek to understand the truths

religion teaches, and seldom are they disappointed in her lessons.

Disappointed, indeed, would we have been had Jefferson taken no

interest in so great a subject: one which so nearly concerns human

happiness, and so largely affects the peace and well being of society.

Both the texture of Jefferson's mind and his environment, however,

were such as to make the subject one of profound interest to him. When

he appeared at William and Mary college at 17 years of age, we are

told that he possessed the three essential qualities of the successful

student, namely, "perfect health, good habits and an inquiring mind."

Fortunately for him, Dr. William Small was professor of mathematics in

the college, and for a time he also filled the chair of philosophy. In

his capacity of teacher and outside college companion of Jefferson,

Professor Small doubtless did much that influenced the development of

the future statesman's mind. He is described as a man of enlightened

understanding, but it is also said that he was "not too orthodox in his

opinions." But that is a circumstance scarcely to be regretted when

the orthodoxy of that day is taken into account, for I am inclined to

think that the further one was removed from that orthodoxy the nearer

he might be to God.

There are two acts in the life of Jefferson to which I shall allude,

and which I think will sufficiently demonstrate the profound interest

he had in the subject of religion. The first is the writing of a letter

to his nephew, Peter Carr, on the subject of that young man's religious

studies. He urges him to a thorough and candid investigation of the

subject of religion without regard to consequences. If young Carr's

investigation ended in the conviction that there was no God, Jefferson

was of opinion that his young relative would still find incentives to

virtue in the comfort and pleasantness of its practice, and in the love

of others it would procure for him. If on the other hand he should find

reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that he was acting

under the divine approval--and I think the idea which follows has never

been sufficiently emphasized--the fact of that divine approval would be

"a vast additional incitement" to the practice of virtue. If he should

find that Jesus was also a God, the student would derive comfort by the

belief in his aid and love. Reason was the only oracle given him of

heaven, and he was not responsible for the "rightness" of his decision,

but he would be responsible for the "uprightness" of it.

The other incident alluded to is Jefferson's complication of the

four-fold text of the "Life and Morals of Jesus," consisting of

selected texts from the four evangelists. I mean by "four-fold

compilation" that he cut the passages respectively from Greek, Latin,

French and English copies of the New Testament. For the "teachings of

Jesus" he selected "only those passages whose style and spirit proved

them genuine, and his own." This compilation was his own effort to

"knock down the artificial scaffolding reared to mask from view the

simple structure of Jesus." And of the teaching of Jesus thus set

forth, he said:

"A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen;

it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to

say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

I am not claiming that the Christianity of Jefferson was orthodox.

His correspondence with Dr. Priestly, and his open admiration for the

teaching of Dr. Channing fix the nature of his belief in the founder of

Christianity. I refer to these matters merely to show that to the mind

of this remarkable man religion was a subject of profound interest and

respect; and also to suggest that it was really the religious nature of

the man that prompted the part he took in securing religious freedom

in the commonwealth of Virginia, and through that circumstance, with

another to be mentioned later, aided mightily in securing religious

freedom in America.

Chiefly upon New England has been fixed the odium of religious

intolerance in our country; but human nature in the eighteenth century

was pretty much of the same sort of stuff throughout the British

colonies; at least the difference was not so very great between New

England and Virginia so far as it found expression in religious

intolerance; for if in New England the people could be fined, whipped

or put in the stocks for not going to church--in Virginia they could

be punished for going to the wrong one, while Baptists, Presbyterians

and Quakers were compelled to pay tithes to a church they did not

attend. If in New England the people could be compelled to stay awake

and refrain from smiling while in church, no matter how tedious or

ridiculous the sermons were--in Virginia justices of the peace were

committing Quakers to the pillory for keeping their hats on in church.

If in Massachusetts, at one time it was a capital offense to celebrate

mass--in Virginia heresy was punishable by burning at the stake. If in

Massachusetts the Church of England services could not be performed,

nor baptism administered by immersion, nor a company of men pray with

their hats on--in Virginia denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was

punishable by three years imprisonment, and Unitarians were legally

deprived of the custody of their children on the ground that people

holding to the belief in the unity of God were unfit to be intrusted

with the rearing of their own children! If in New England the spirit of

religious intolerance was more severe--in Virginia it endured longer;

for while in the former place the fight for religious freedom was won

by the middle of the eighteenth century, it was not until nearly the

close of that century that it was won in the latter. Religious freedom

was not established in Virginia until the final adoption, in 1786, of

Jefferson's statute for that purpose. The statute was presented in the

house of burgesses in 1776, and the main clause was as follows:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious

worship, ministry, or place whatsoever; nor shall be enforced,

restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor shall

otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief;

but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,

their opinions in matters of religion; and the same shall in no

wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Such an enactment as is here proposed seems now so reasonable to us, so

commonplace in its justice, that we marvel that it was not unanimously

and immediately passed by the house of burgesses. But after twenty-five

days of debate, which Jefferson himself characterized as "desperate

contests," the utmost of achievement at that time was the repeal of

the statute which imposed penalties for going to the wrong church and

compelling dissenters to pay tithes. Not until nine years more had

passed--years of bitterness and strife and noble effort on the part of

Jefferson and his liberal associates, could Virginia be brought to a

settlement of her religious problems by the adoption of the foregoing

proposed enactment.

This statute, so far as in him lay the power, Jefferson tried to make

a sort of English bill of rights. At least I judge so from the nature

of one of the paragraphs of the statute, and which is well worth the

trouble to read.

"And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the

people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no

power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted

with power equal to our own, and that, therefore, to declare this

act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to

declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the

natural rights of mankind; and that if any act shall be hereafter

passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act

will be an infringement of natural right."

Of course, as Mr. Jefferson himself realized, the state legislature

could not bind succeeding legislatures from altering or amending this

statute, but undoubtedly there was a moral force that went with what

was there set down in the statute. At any rate the passing of this act

was a final settlement of the question. Never since those days has it

been disturbed, and finally those principles were adopted in every

state of the American union.

The principle upon which Jefferson acted in securing religious freedom

in Virginia--though expressed in language used some years after the

conflict in Virginia had closed--is set forth as follows:

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself

to resist invasions of it in the case of others, or their case may,

by change of circumstances, become his own."

The arguments by which Jefferson sustained the justice of the Virginia

statute, though commonplace to us now, are worth repeating in part,

since occasional reference to fundamental principles is beneficial.

Opinion, he declared to be something with which government had nothing

to do; government was no more competent to prescribe beliefs than

medicine, and constraint made hypocrites, not converts. Error alone

needed support of government; truth could stand by itself. Subject

opinion to coercion, and you make fallible men, governed by bad

passions, by private as well as public reasons, your inquisitors, and

even if desirable, uniformity is unattainable.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children," he said, "since the

introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined,

imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What

has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools, and

the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the

earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of

people; that these profess probably a thousand different systems of

religion; that ours is but one of that thousand; that if there be but

one right, and ours that one, we would wish to see the nine hundred

and ninety-nine wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But

against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and

persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these,

free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge

it, while we refuse it ourselves."

Jefferson's contribution to religious freedom in America was not

limited to the drafting and finally securing the passage of the

Virginia statute on the subject. Although it must be admitted that his

further contribution to religious freedom in America resulted from

indirect, rather than from direct means. After the war of independence

closed, and the founders of the great republic met in convention

to form a more perfect union and a more efficient government, this

principle of religious freedom was finally included among the

provisions of that constitution, under which we have now had one

hundred and twenty years of national life. It expressly provides that

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any

office or public trust under the United States."

Also that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Jefferson was in France during the formation of the Constitution,

and therefore could have had but little to do directly with its

formation, but it must be remembered that some years before--1776--he

had written what will always be regarded as the preface to our

Constitution, namely, the immortal Declaration of Independence. When

in that instrument Jefferson declared as self-evident truth that all

men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with an

inalienable right to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness; and

that to secure these rights governments were instituted among men,

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed--he set in

order the foundation principles of all our liberties, religious as well

as civil. After the adoption of that declaration and its maintenance

by a successful appeal to the dreadful arbitrament of war, it was

inevitable that the religious liberties now secured by constitutional

provision in every state of the union, and in the national constitution

as well, should come. That Jefferson contributed to this general result

more, perhaps, than any other American statesman, as well as being the

leading factor in the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia,

will not be disputed.

This American religious liberty which sets the church free from the

interference of the civil authority, carries with it as a corollary

the freedom of the state from the interference of ecclesiastical

authority--it results in the absolute separation of the church and the

state. Great as religious freedom is, and in my estimation above all

price, yet the other half of our American system--the freedom of the

state from ecclesiastical domination, is of equal value, and equally

necessary to our peace and the security of both church and state. It is

claimed by high authority that one-half of the wars of Europe and half

the troubles that have vexed European states from the early centuries

of the Christian era down to the nineteenth century, have arisen from

theological differences or from the rival claims of church and state.

Thank God, the United States under the national Constitution has no

part in such a record as that! The comparative peace and freedom

from religious strife that has obtained in our own country, through

more than a century of religious freedom, vindicates the wisdom

of our system, which has led to the happiest results. A few years

ago--1891--these results were described by a gentleman of commanding

influence, both in literature and in the civil affairs of his own

country, and who now holds the exalted station of British ambassador to

our government at Washington, Mr. James Bryce. Listen to his words:

"There are no quarrels of churches and sects. Judah does not vex

Ephraim, nor Ephraim envy Judah. No established church looks

down scornfully upon dissenters from the height of its titles

and endowments, and talks of them as hindrances in the way of

its work. No dissenters pursue an established church in a spirit

of watchful jealousy, nor agitate for its overthrow. One is not

offended by the contrast between the theory and the practice of a

religion of peace, between professions of universal affection in

pulpit addresses and forms of prayer, and the acrimony of clerical

controversialists. Still less, of course, is there that sharp

opposition and antagonism of Christians and anti-Christians which

lacerates the private as well as public life of France. Rivalry

between sects appears only in the innocent form of the planting

of new churches and raising of funds for missionary objects,

while most of the Protestant denominations, including the four

most numerous, constantly fraternize in charitable work. Between

Roman Catholics and Protestants there is little hostility, and

sometimes co-operation for a philanthropic purpose. The skeptic is

no longer under a social ban, and discussions on the essentials

of Christianity and of theism are conducted with good temper.

There is not a country in the world where Frederick the Great's

principle, that everyone should be allowed to go to heaven in his

own way, is so fully applied. This sense of religious peace as

well as religious freedom all around one, is soothing to the weary

European, and contributes not a little to sweeten the lives of

ordinary people."

I am aware, ladies and gentlemen, that I am trespassing on your

valuable time, but bear with me while I make brief reference to local

conditions. It may be said that in Utah we have not participated in

this peace and tranquility described as characteristic of America by

Mr. Bryce. That here there has been to some extent church domination

of the state; ecclesiastical interference in civil affairs; and I am

not prepared to make unqualified denial of those charges. But I do

feel free to say that it is my conviction that we have entered upon a

period in our experience in Utah, when we shall fully participate in

the general peace that results from the American doctrine of religious

and political freedom, and the separation of church and state. The

recent authoritative utterances of the dominant Church in Utah is the

fact on which I base this hope of mine. Full acquiescence in this

American system of the relations of church and state are set forth

in that utterance with greater emphasis than ever before. It commits

the dominant Church irrevocably to the doctrine of "non-interference

of church authority in political matters; the absolute freedom and

independence of the individual in the performance of his political

duties." And then it makes this emphatic declaration that "if at any

time there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been

in violation of the well settled principles and policy of the Church."

Of course I know there are those who doubt the good faith of this late

official utterance of the Church, but it is preposterous to assume

that this religious organization would dare, before the world and its

own people, to enter upon such a system of deliberate deception and

hypocrisy as it would be involved in if its late official utterance be

not honest.

But even if it were conceivable that duplicity was the deliberate

intention of the church or its chief authorities, I should still be

hopeful of the outcome, and that the outcome would be hastened by this

last official utterance. And these are my reasons: The questions of

religious freedom, and the relations of church and state are settled

once for all in this country. The right of the individual to be

politically free is crystallized into accomplished fact; and so dear

to the individual is that right, so jealously is it guarded by the

political community as a condition fundamental to the preservation

of the American spirit of manhood, and national well-being that it

stands absolutely in no danger of being sacrificed, either to the

cunning of priests or the influence of a church, however powerful. If

the dominant Church, so emphatically committed to the support of this

American system, should attempt to play double--it would, and could

only, mean ruin and disruption to the Church. As an organization it

might survive every opposing force, but it could not survive the double

dealing in which it would be involved if its last official utterance on

the subject of non-interference in politics is not put forth in good

faith. Should its leaders chicane in this matter it would mean severest

censure of public opinion; bitterness and resentment and rebellion in

its own membership; loss of respect and influence of all kinds, both

in the Church and in the state; in a word, such a course would spell

disaster. Intelligent men must know these things; and, giving the

Church leaders, and the Church membership credit for at least ordinary

intelligence, one must believe them honest as to what they have

committed themselves to in their last official utterance. And by an

honest adherence to the principles in that utterance, I feel confident

that in Utah we shall share in the tranquility which in respect to

these questions obtains everywhere else in America.

VIII.

"Conditions in Utah." 1905.

FOREWORD.

This speech of Senator Kearns' on "Conditions in Utah", created

widespread interest at the time it was read in the Senate House, viz.,

on the 28th of February, 1905. It was quite universally commented

upon by the press of the country, and generally to the disparagement

of Utah, and the Mormon people. The consensus of opinion expressed

in the newspapers who took for granted the statements of the speech

as representing the facts in the case, are clearly set forth in an

Editorial of the "New York Globe."

"The Mormon church has broken both the letter and the spirit of the

contract into which it entered when the Territory was admitted as a

state. Polygamous cohabitation exists with the implied sanction of

the church, and the hierarchy has become a huge political machine

whose purpose is to control Utah for its own purposes, and, what is

more ominous, the adjacent States and Territories. Never in Brigham

Young's time was Mormonism more of a political and moral menace

than it is today."

This conclusion might be quite logical, if the statements of Senator

Kearns were true. All I ask is that after reading the speech of the

Senator, the reader will suspend his judgement of the case until he

shall have read the answer to it.

I.

Speech of the Hon. Thomas Kearns in the Senate of the United

States.[A]

[Footnote A: From the Congressional Record.]

The President pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate the

resolution submitted by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Dubois], which will

be read.

The Secretary read the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. Dubois, as

follows:

_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and it is hereby,

authorized and instructed to prepare and report to the Senate within

thirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress a joint

resolution of the two Houses of Congress proposing to the several

States amendments to the Constitution of the United States which shall

provide, in substance, for the prohibition and punishment of polygamous

marriages and plural cohabitation contracted or practiced within the

United States and in every place subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States; and which shall, in substance, also require all persons

taking office under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or

of any State, to take and subscribe an oath that he or she is not, and

will not be, a member or adherent of any organization whatever the

laws, rules, or nature of which organization require him or her to

disregard his or her duty to support and maintain the Constitution and

laws of the United States and of the several States.

Mr. Kearns. Mr. President, I will not permit this occasion to pass

without saying, with brevity and such clearness as I can command, what

it seems to me should be said by a Senator, under these circumstances,

before leaving public life. Something is due to the State which has

honored me; something is due to the record which I have endeavored

to maintain honorably before the world and something, by way of

information, is due to the Senate and the country.

Utah, the newest of the States, to me the best beloved of all the

States, appears to be the only one concerning which there is a serious

conflict. I was not born in Utah, but I have spent all the years of

my manhood there, and I love the commonwealth and its people. In what

I say there is malice toward none, and I hope to make it just to

all. If the present day does not accept my statements and appreciate

my motives, I can only trust that time will prove more gentle and

that in the future those who care to revert to these remarks will

know that they are animated purely by a hope to bring about a better

understanding between Utah and this great nation.

Utah was admitted to statehood after, and because of, a long series of

pledges exacted from the Mormon leaders, the like of which had never

before been known in American history. Except for those pledges, the

sentiment of the United States would never have assented to Utah's

admission. Except for the belief on the part of Congress and the

country that the extraordinary power which abides in that State would

maintain these pledges, Utah would not have been admitted. There is

every reason to believe that the President who signed the bill would

have vetoed it if he had not been convinced that the pledges made would

be kept.

THE PLEDGES.

As a citizen of the State and a witness to the events and words which

constitute those pledges, as a Senator of the United States, I give my

word of honor to you that I believed that these pledges consisted of

the following propositions:

First. That the Mormon leaders would live within the laws pertaining to

plural marriage and the continued plural marriage relation, and that

they would enforce this obligation upon all of their followers, under

penalty of disfellowship.

Second. That the leaders of the Mormon Church would no longer exercise

political sway, and that their followers would be free and would

exercise their freedom in politics, in business, and in social affairs.

As a citizen and a Senator I give my word of honor to you that I

believed that these pledges would be kept in the spirit in which

Congress and the country accepted them, and that there would never be

any violation, evasion, denial, or equivocation concerning them.

I appeal to such members of this body as were in either House of

Congress during the years 1890 to 1896, if it was not their belief

at that time that the foregoing were the pledges and that they would

be kept; and I respectfully insist that every Senator here who was a

member of either House at that time would have refused to vote for

Utah's admission unless he had firmly believed as I have stated.

1. Utah secured her statehood by a solemn compact made by the Mormon

leaders in behalf of themselves and their people.

2. That compact has been broken willfully and frequently.

3. No apostle of the Mormon Church has publicly protested against that

violation.

I know the gravity of the utterances that I have just made. I know what

are the probable consequences to myself. But I have pondered long and

earnestly upon the subject and have come to the conclusion that duty to

the innocent people of my State and that obligation to the Senate and

the country require that I shall clearly define my attitude.

RELIGION NOT INVOLVED.

This is no quarrel with religion. This is no assault upon any man's

faith. This is rather the reverence toward the inherent right of all

men to believe as they please, which separates religious faith from

irreligious practice. The Mormon people have a system of their own,

somewhat complex, and gathered from the mysticisms of all the ages. It

does not appeal to most men; but in its purely theological domain it is

theirs, and I respect it as their religion and them as its believers.

The trouble arises now, as it has frequently arisen in the past, from

the fact that some of the accidental leaders of the movement since the

first zealot founder have sought to make of this religion not only a

system of morals, sometimes quite original in themselves, but also a

system of social relation, a system of finance, a system of commerce,

and a system of politics.

THE SOCIAL ASPECT.

I dismiss the religion with my profound respect; if it can comfort

them, I would not, if I could, disturb it. Coming to the social aspect

of the society, it is apparent that the great founder sought first

to establish equality among men, and then to draw from those equal

ranks a special class, who were permitted to practice polygamy and

to whom special privileges were accorded in their association with

the consecrated temples and the administration of mystic ordinances

therein. The polygamous group, or cult as it may be called, soon became

the ruling factor in the organization; and it may be observed that

ever since the founding of the church almost every man of prominence

in the community has belonged to this order. It was so in the time of

the martyrs, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who were killed at Carthage jail

in Illinois, and both of whom were polygamists, although it was denied

at the time. There were living until recently, and perhaps there are

living now, women who testified that they were married in polygamy to

one or the other of these two men, Joseph having the larger number. It

has been so ever since and is so today, that nearly every man of the

governing class has been or is a polygamist.

Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith, and he set up a kind of kingly

rulership, not unbecoming to a man of his vast empire-building power.

The Mormons have been taught to revere Joseph Smith as a direct prophet

from God. He saw the face of the All Father. He held communion with

the Son. The Holy Ghost was his constant companion. He settled every

question, however trivial, by revelation from Almighty God. But Brigham

was different. While claiming a divine right of leadership, he worked

out his great mission by palpable and material means. I do not know

that he ever pretended to have received a revelation from the time

that he left Nauvoo until he reached the shores of the Dead Sea, nor

through all the thirty years of his leadership there. He seemed to

regard his people as children who had to be led through their serious

calamities by holding out to them the glittering thought of divine

guardianship. So firmly did Brigham establish the social order in

Utah that all of the people were equal, except the governing body.

This may be said to consist of the president and his two counsellors,

they three constituting the first presidency; the twelve apostles;

the presiding bishopric, consisting of three men, the chief bishops

of the church but much lower in rank than the apostles; the seven

presidents of seventies, who are, under the apostles, the subordinate

head of the missionary service of the church; and the presiding

patriarch. These altogether constitute a body of twenty-six men. There

are local authorities in the different stakes of Zion, as they are

called, corresponding to counties in a State, but with these it is not

necessary to deal.

Practically all of these men under Brigham Young were polygamists. They

constituted what one of their number once called the "elite class" of

the community. To attain this rank one usually had to show ability, and

attaining the rank he was quite certain to enter into or extend his

already existing plural-marriage relations. These rulers were looked

upon with great reverence. Brigham Young, besides being a prophet of

God, as they believed, had led them through the greatest march of the

ages. His nod became almost superhuman in its significance. His frown

was as terrible to them as the wrath of God. He upheld all the members

of the polygamistic and governing class by his favoritism toward

them. He supremely, and they subordinately, ruled the community as if

they were a king and a house of peers, with no house of commons. Not

elsewhere in the United States, and not in any foreign country where

civilization dwells, has there been such a complete mastery of man over

modern men. The subordinates and the mass would perform the slightest

will of Brigham Young. When he was not present the mass would perform

the will of any of the subordinates speaking in his name. Below this

privileged class stood the common mass. It had its various gradations

of title, but, with the exception of rare instances of personal power,

there was equality in the mass. For instance, as business was a part of

their system, the local religious authority in some remote part might

be the business subordinate of some other man of less ecclesiastical

rank, with the result that this peculiar intermingling kept them all

practically upon one level of social order; and the man who made adobes

under the hot sun of the desert through all the week might still be

the religious superior of the richest man in the local community,

and they met on terms of equality and friendship. Their children

might intermarry, the difference in wealth being countervailed by a

difference in ecclesiastical authority.

It was a strange social system, this, with Brigham Young and his

coterie of advisers, to the number of twenty-six, standing at the head,

self-perpetuating, the chief being able to select constantly to fill

the ranks as they might be depleted by death; and all these ruling over

one solid mass of equal caste who thought that the rulers were animated

by divine revelation, holding the right to govern in all things on

earth and with authority extending into heaven.

So firmly entrenched was their social system that when Brigham Young

passed away his various successors who came in time to his place by

accident of seniority of service found ample opportunity without

difficulty to perpetuate this system and to maintain their social

autocracy. As the matter has appeared so fully before the country, I

will not speak further of the method of succession, but will merely

call to your minds that after Brigham Young came John Taylor, then

Wilford Woodruff, then Lorenzo Snow, then Joseph F. Smith, the present

ruler.

Under these several men the social autocracy has had its varying

fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as

it ever reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The

president of the church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His

home consists of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and

surrounded by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness.

In addition to this he has an official residence of historic character

near to the office which he occupies as president. When he travels he

is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really servitors.

When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler among his

subjects. And in this respect I am not speaking of Mormon associations

alone, for there are many Gentiles in and out of Utah who seem to take

delight in paying this extraordinary deference.

If I have seemed to speak at length upon this mere social phase it

has not been without a definite purpose. I want you to know how

this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality of

men, immediately established and has maintained for the mass of its

adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its rulers

to regal authority and splendor. Understanding how the chief among them

has the dignity of a monarch in their social relations, you will better

understand the business and political autocracy which he has been able

to establish.

In all this social system each apostle has his great part. He is

inseparable from it. He wields now, as does a minister at court, such

part of the power as the monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his

hope and expectation that he will outlive those who are his seniors in

rank in order that he may become the ruler.

Therefore, if there be evil in this social relation as I have portrayed

it, every apostle is responsible for a part of that evil. They enjoy

the honors of the social class; they help to exert the tyranny over the

subjugated mass. Those of you who do me the honor to follow my remarks

will realize how close is the relation between the apostles and the

president, and that the apostle is a responsible part of the governing

power. While I may speak of the president of the church segregated from

his associates and as the monarch, it must be understood constantly

that he maintains his power by the support of the apostles, who keep

the mass in order and in subjugation to his will, expressed through

them.

THE BUSINESS MONOPOLY.

Whatever may have been its origin or excuse, the business power of the

president of the church and of the select class which he admits into

business relations with him is now a practical monopoly, or is rapidly

becoming a monopoly, of everything that he touches. I want to call your

attention to the extraordinary list of worldly concerns in which this

spiritual leader holds official position. The situation is more amazing

when you are advised that this man came to his presidency purely by

accident, namely, the death of his seniors in rank; that he had never

known any business ability, and that he comes to the presidency and

the directorship of the various corporations solely because he is

president of the church. He is already reputed to be a wealthy man, and

his statement would seem to indicate that he has large holdings in the

various corporations with which he is associated, although previous to

his accession to the presidency of the church he made a kind of proud

boast among his people of his poverty.

He conducts railways, street-car lines, power and light companies,

coal mines, salt works, sugar factories, shoe factories, mercantile

houses, drug stores, newspapers, magazines, theaters, and almost every

conceivable kind of business, and in all of these, inasmuch as he is

the dominant factor by virtue of his being the prophet of God, he

asserts indisputable sway. It is considered an evidence of deference to

him, and good standing in the church, for his hundreds of thousands of

followers to patronize exclusively the institutions which he controls.

And this fact alone, without any business ability on his part, but

with capable subordinate guidance for his enterprises, insures their

success, and danger and possible ruin for every competitive enterprise.

Independent of these business concerns, he is in receipt of an income

like unto that which a royal family derives from a national treasury.

One-tenth of all the annual earnings of all the Mormons in all the

world flows to him. These funds amount to the sum of $1,600,000

annually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000, which is one-quarter of

the entire taxable wealth of the State of Utah. It is the same as if

he owned, individually, in addition to all his visible enterprises,

one-quarter of all the wealth of the State and derived from it 5 per

cent of income without taxation and without discount. The hopelessness

of contending in a business way with this autocrat must be perfectly

apparent to your minds. The original purpose of this vast tithe,

as often stated by speakers for the church, was the maintenance of

the poor, the building of meetinghouses, etc. Today the tithes are

transmuted, in the localities where they are paid, into cash, and

they flow into the treasury of the head of the church. No account is

made, or ever has been made, of these tithes. The president expends

them according to his own will and pleasure, and with no examination

of his accounts, except by those few men whom he selects for that

purpose and whom he rewards for their zeal and secrecy. Shortly after

the settlement of the Mormon Church property question with the United

States the church issued a series of bonds, amounting approximately

to $1,000,000, which were taken by financial institutions. This was

probably to wipe out a debt which had accumulated during a long period

of controversy with the nation. But since, and including the year 1897,

which was about the time of the issue of the bonds, approximately

$9,000,000 have been paid as tithes. If any of the bonds are still

outstanding, it is manifestly because the president of the church

desires for reasons of his own to have an existing indebtedness.

It will astound you to know that every dollar of United States money

paid to any servant of the Government who is a Mormon is tithed for the

benefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus paid he gets $100 to

swell his grandeur. This is also true of money paid out of the public

treasury of the State of Utah to Mormon officials. But what is worst of

all, the monarch dips into the sacred public school fund and extracts

from every Mormon teacher one-tenth of his or her earnings and uses

it for his unaccounted purposes; and, by means of these purposes and

the power which they constitute, he defies the laws of his State, the

sentiment of his country, and is waging war of nullification on the

public school system, so dear to the American people. No right-thinking

man will oppose any person as a servant of the nation or the State or

as a teacher in the public schools on account of religious faith. As I

have before remarked, this is no war upon the religion of the Mormons;

and I am only calling attention to the monstrous manner in which this

monarch invades all the provinces of human life and endeavors to secure

his rapacious ends.

In all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to voluntary

gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters connected

legitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are against the

tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from individuals the

moneys which they ought not to spare from family needs, and which they

do not wish to spare; my comment and criticism relate to the power of

a monarch whose tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys

paid by the Government are considered the property of the Government's

servant until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary

tribute, with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the

monarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs, which

are not a part of either religion or charity.

With an income of 5 per cent upon one-quarter of the entire assessed

valuation of the State of Utah today, how long will it take this

monarch, with his constantly increasing demands for revenue, to so

absorb the productive power that he shall be receiving an income of 5

per cent upon one-half the property, and then upon all of the property

of the State? This is worse than the farming of taxes under the old

French Kings. Will Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?

The view which the people of the United States entertained on this

subject forty years ago was shown by the act of Congress in 1862, in

which a provision, directed particularly against the Mormon Church,

declared that no church in a Territory of the United States should

have in excess of $50,000 of wealth outside of the property used for

purposes of worship. It is evident that as early as that time the

pernicious effects of a system which used the name of God and the

authority of religion to dominate in commerce and finance were fully

recognized.

This immense tithing fund is gathered directly from Mormons, but

the burden falls in some degree upon Gentiles also. Gentiles are in

business and suffer by competition with the tithe-supported business

enterprises. Gentiles are large employers of Mormon labor; and as

that labor must pay one-tenth of its earnings to support competitive

concerns, the Gentile employer must pay, indirectly at least, the tithe

which may be utilized to compete with, and even ruin, him in business.

And in return it should be noted that Mormon institutions do not employ

Gentiles except in rare cases of necessity. The reason is obvious:

Gentiles do not take as kindly to the tithing system as do the Mormons.

The Mormon citizen of Utah has additional disadvantages. After paying

one-tenth of all his earnings as a tithe offering, he is called upon to

erect and maintain the meetinghouses and other edifices of the church;

he is called upon to donate to the poor fund in his ward, through

his local Bishop; he is called upon to sustain the Women's Relief

Society, whose purpose is to care for the poor and to minister to the

sick; he is called upon to pay his share of the expense for the 2,500

missionaries of the church who are constantly kept in the field without

drawing upon the general funds of the church. When all this is done,

it is found that, in defiance of the old and deserved boast of the

predecessors of the present president, there are some Mormons in the

poorhouses of Utah, and these are sustained by the public taxes derived

from the Gentiles and Mormons alike.

Broadly speaking, the Gentiles compose 35 per cent of the population

and pay one-half of the taxes of Utah. In the long run they carry their

share of all these great charges.

The almost unbearable community burden which is thus inflicted must be

visible to your minds without argument from me.

Let it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the property

of Utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the president of the

church, and that at his instance any industry, any institution, within

the State, could be destroyed except the mining and smelting industry.

Even this industry his personal and church organ has attacked with a

threat of extermination by the courts, or by additional legislation, if

the smelters do not meet the view expressed by the church organ.

Mr. President, I ask to have read at this point an editorial from the

Deseret Evening News of October 31, 1904, which I send to the desk.

The President pro tempore. The Secretary will read as requested.

The Secretary read as follows:

DESERET EVENING NEWS.

[Organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]

SALT LAKE CITY, October 31, 1904.

AWAY WITH THE NUISANCE.

The people of Salt Lake City are waking up to the realization

of the trouble of which our cousins out in the country are

complaining. The sulphurous fumes which have been tasted by many

folks here, particularly late at night, are not only those of a

partisan nature emanating from the smokestacks of the slanderers

and maligners, but are treats bestowed upon our citizens by the

smelters, and are samples of the goods, or rather evils, which

farmers and horticulturists have been burdened with so long.

Complaints have come to us from some of the best people of the

city, of different faiths and parties, that the air has been laden

with sulphurous fumes that can not only be felt in the throat,

but tasted in the mouth, and they rest upon the city at night,

appearing like a thin fog.

The fact is this smelter smoke will have to go; there is no mistake

about that. If the smelters can not consume it, they will have to

close up. This fair county must not be devastated and this city

must not be rendered unhealthful by any such a nuisance as that

which has been borne with now for a long time. The evasive policy

that has been pursued, the tantalizing treatment toward the farmers

who have vainly sought for redress, the destruction that has come

upon vegetation and upon live stock, and now the choking fumes that

reach this city all demand some practical remedy in place of the

shilly-shally of the past.

The Deseret News has counseled peace, consideration for the smelter

people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor toward

a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper lines,

and arbitration instead-of litigation. But it really seems now as

though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin will

come to the agricultural pursuits of Salt Lake County, while the

city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. If the

companies that control those works will not or can not dispose of

the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks,

the fires will have to be banked and the nuisance suppressed. We

do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. We are of

opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that

efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay.

It looks as if the courts will have to be appealed to to obtain

compensation or damages already inflicted. Also that they will have

to be applied to for injunctions against the continuance of the

cause of the trouble. We think there is law enough now to proceed

under. But if that is not the case, then legislation must be had

to fully cover the ground. Litigation will have to come first,

legislation afterwards. However that may be, temporizing with

the evil will not do. Patience has ceased to be a virtue in this

matter. The conviction is fastening itself upon the public mind

that no active steps are intended by the responsible parties, but

simply a policy of delay. They must be taught that this will not

answer the purpose, and that the injured people will not be fooled

in that way. The smelter smoke must go. And it must not go in the

old way.

The proposition to put the matter in the hands of experts chosen

by the complainants is not to be seriously considered. The onus

is upon the smelter men; they are the offenders, and they must

take the steps necessary to remove the cause of complaint, and

also reimburse those who have been injured. We do not ask anything

unreasonable. We join with those of our citizens who intend that

this beautiful part of our lovely State shall not be laid waste,

even if the only cure is the suppression of the destroying cause.

This may as well be understood first as last. Unless practical

measures are adopted to abate the evil, active proceedings will

have to be taken and pushed to the utmost to remove entirely the

root and branch and trunk and body of this tree of destruction.

The people affected are deeply in earnest, and they certainly mean

business.

Mr. Kearns. Mr. President, I must not burden you with too many details,

but in order for you to see how complete is the business power of this

man I will cite you to one case. The Great Salt Lake is estimated to

contain 14,000,000,000 tons of salt. Probably salt can be made cheaper

on the shores of this lake than anywhere else in the world. Nearly all

its shore line is adaptable for salt gardens. The president of the

church is interested in a large salt monopoly which has gathered in the

various smaller enterprises. He is president of a railroad which runs

from the salt gardens to Salt Lake City, connecting there with trunk

lines. It costs to manufacture the salt and place it on board the cars

75 cents per ton. He receives for it $5 and $6 per ton. His company and

its subsidiary corporation are probably capitalized at three-quarters

of a million dollars, and upon this large sum he is able to pay

dividends of 8 or 10 per cent.

Not long since two men, who for many years had been tithe payers and

loyal members of the church, undertook to establish a salt garden

along the line of a trunk railway. One of them was a large dealer in

salt, and proposed to extend his trade by making the salt and reaching

territory prohibited to him by the church price of salt; the other was

the owner of the land upon which it was proposed to establish the salt

garden. These men formed a corporation, put in pumping stations and

flumes, and the corporation became indebted to one of the financial

institutions over which the church exercises considerable influence.

Then the president of the church sent for them. There is scarcely an

instance on record where a message of this kind failed of its purpose.

These men went to meet the prophet, seer, and revelator of God, as they

supposed, but he had laid aside his robes of sanctity for the moment

and he was a plain, unadorned, aggressive, if not an able, business

man. He first denounced them for interfering with a business which he

had made peculiarly his own; and, when they protested that they had no

intention to interfere with his trade, but were seeking new markets, he

declared in a voice of thunderous passion that if they did not cease

with their projected enterprise, he would crush them. They escaped from

his presence feeling like courtiers repulsed from the foot of a king's

throne, and then surveyed their enterprise. If they stopped, they would

lose all the money invested and their enterprise would possibly be sold

out to their creditors; if they went on and invested more money, the

president had the power, as he had threatened, to crush them. Not only

could he ruin their enterprise, but he could ostracize them socially

and could make of them marked and shunned men in the community where

they had always been respected.

Is there menace in this system? To me it seems like a great danger to

all the people who are now affected, and therefore of great danger to

the people of the United States, because the power of this monarchy

within the Republic is constantly extending. If it be an evil, every

apostle is in part responsible for this tyrannical course. He helped to

elect the president; he does the president's bidding, and shares in the

advantages of that tyranny.

I did not call the social system a violation of the pledges to the

country, but I do affirm that the business tyranny of Mormon leaders is

an express violation of the covenant made, for they do not leave their

followers free in secular affairs. They tyrannize over them, and their

tyranny spreads even to the Gentiles. In all this I charge that every

apostle is a party to the wrong and to the violation. Although I speak

of the president of the church as the leader, the monarch in fact,

every apostle is one of his ministers, one of his creators, and also

one of his creatures, and possibly his successor; and the whole system

depends upon the manner in which the apostles and the other leaders

shall support the chief leader. As no apostle has ever protested

against this system, but has, by every means in his power, encouraged

it, he can not escape his share of the responsibility for it. It is an

evil; they aid it. It is a violation of the pledge upon which statehood

was granted; they profit by it.

THE POLITICAL AUTOCRACY.

I pass now to the political aspect of this hierarchy, as some call it,

but this monarchy as I choose to term it.

I have previously called your attention to the social and business

powers, monopolies, autocracies, exercised by the leaders. Through

these channels of social and business relations they can spread the

knowledge of their political desires without appearing obtrusively in

politics. When the end of their desire is accomplished, they affect to

wash their hands of all responsibility by denying that they engaged

in political activities. Superficial persons, and those desiring to

accept this argument, are convinced by it. But never, in the palmy days

of Brigham Young, was there a more complete political tyranny than

is exercised by the present president of the Mormon Church and his

apostles, who are merely awaiting the time when by the death of their

seniors in rank they may become president, and select some other man to

hold the apostleship in their place--as they now hold it in behalf of

the ruling monarch.

In this statement I merely call your attention to what a perfect

system of ecclesiastical government is maintained by these presidents

and apostles; and I do not need to more than indicate to you what

a wondrous aid their ecclesiastical government can be, and is, in

accomplishing their political purposes.

Parties are nothing to these leaders, except as parties may be used by

them. So long as there is Republican administration and Congress, they

will lead their followers to support Republican tickets; but if, by

any chance, the Democratic party should control this Government, with

a prospect of continuance in power, you would see a gradual veering

around under the direction of the Mormon leaders. When Republicans are

in power the Republican leaders of the Mormon people are in evidence

and the Democratic leaders are in retirement. If the Democracy were

in power, the Republican leaders of the Mormon people would go into

retirement and Democrats would appear in their places. No man can be

elected to either House of Congress against their wish. I will not

trespass upon your patience long enough to recite the innumerable

circumstances that prove this assertion, but will merely refer to

enough instances to illustrate the method. In 1897, at the session of

the legislature which was to elect a Senator, and which was composed of

sixty Democrats and three Republicans, Moses Thatcher was the favored

candidate of the Democracy in the State. He had been an apostle of the

Mormon Church, but had been deposed because he was out of harmony with

the leaders. The Hon. Joseph L. Rawlins was a rival candidate, but not

strongly so at first. He was encouraged by the church leaders in every

way; and finally, when his strength had been advanced sufficiently to

need but one vote, a Mormon Republican was promptly moved over into

the Democratic column and he was elected by the joint assembly. I

do not charge that Hon. Joseph L. Rawlins, who occupied a seat with

distinguished honor in this great body for six years, had any improper

bargain with the church, or any knowledge of the secret methods by

which his election was being compassed; but he was elected under the

direction of the leaders of the church because they desired to defeat

and further humiliate a deposed apostle.

I will not ignore my own case. During nearly three years I have waited

this great hour of justice in which I could answer the malignant

falsehood and abuse which has been heaped upon a man who is dead and

can not answer, and upon myself, a living man willing to wait the time

for answer. Lorenzo Snow, a very aged man, was president of the church

when I was elected to the Senate. He had reached that advanced time

of life, being over eighty, when men abide largely in the thoughts

of their youth. He was my friend in that distant way which sometimes

exists without close acquaintanceship, our friendship (if I may term it

such) having arisen from the events attendant upon Utah's struggle for

statehood. For some reason he did not oppose my election to the Senate.

Every other candidate for the place had sought his favor; it came to me

without price or solicitation on my part. The friends and mouthpieces

of some of the present leaders have been base enough to charge that

I bought the Senatorship from Lorenzo Snow, president of their own

church. Here and now I denounce the calumny against that old man, whose

unsought and unbought favor came to me in that contest. That I ever

paid him one dollar of money, or asked him to influence legislators

of his faith, is as cruel a falsehood as ever came from human lips.

So far as I am concerned he held his power with clean hands, and I

would protect the memory of this dead man against all the abuse and

misrepresentation which might be heaped upon him by those who were his

adherents during life, but who now attack his fame in order that they

may pay the greater deference to the present king.

You must know that in that day we were but five years old as a State.

Our political conditions were and had been greatly unsettled. The

purpose of the church to rule in politics had not yet been made so

manifest and determined. Lorenzo Snow held his office for a brief

time--about two years. What he did in that office pertaining to my

election I here and now distinctly assume as my burden, for no man

shall with impunity use his hatred of me to defame Lorenzo Snow and

dishonor his memory to his living and loving descendants.

As for myself, I am willing to take the Senate and the country into my

confidence, and make a part of the eternal records of the Senate, for

such of my friends as may care to read, the vindication of my course

to my posterity. I had an ambition, and not an improper one, to sit in

the Senate of the United States. My competitors had longer experience

in politics and may have understood more of the peculiar situation in

the State. They sought what is known as church influence. I sought to

obtain this place by purely political means. I was elected. After all

their trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the

very means which they had basely invoked. I have served with you four

years, and have sought in a modest way to make a creditable record

here. I have learned something of the grandeur and dignity of the

Senate, something of its ideals, which I could not know before coming

here. I say to you, my fellow Senators, that this place of power is

infinitely more magnificent than I dreamed when I first thought of

occupying a seat here. But were it thrice as great as I now know it to

be, and were I back in that old time of struggle in Utah, when I was

seeking for this honor, I would not permit the volunteered friendship

of President Snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one

atom of the church monarch's favor. My ideals have grown with my term

of service in this body, and I believe that the man who would render

here the highest service to his country must be careful to attain to

this place by the purest civic path that mortal feet can tread.

I have said enough to indicate that for my own part I never

countenanced, nor knowingly condoned, the intrusion of the church

monarchy into secular affairs. And I have said enough to those who know

me to prove for all time that, so far as I am concerned, my election

here was as honorable as that of any man who sits in this chamber; and

yet I have said enough that all men may know that rather than have a

dead man's memory defamed on my account, I will make his cause my own

and will fight for the honor which he is not on earth to defend. This

will not suit the friends and mouthpieces of the present rulers, but I

have no desire to satisfy or conciliate them; and in leaving this part

of the question, I avenge President Snow sufficiently by saying that

these men did not dare to offend his desire nor dispute his will while

he was living, and only grew brave when they could cry: "Lorenzo, the

king, is dead! Long live Joseph, the king!"

As a Senator I have sought to fulfill my duty to the people of this

country. I am about to retire from this place of dignity. No man

can retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect after he

discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects

which the church monarchy intends to achieve. Some of my critics will

say that I relinquished that which I could not hold. I will not pause

to discuss that point further than to say that if I had chosen to adopt

the policy with the present monarch of the church, which his friends

and mouthpieces say I did adopt with the king who is dead, it might

have been possible to retain this place of honor with dishonor.

Every apostle is a part of this terrible power, which can make and

unmake at its mysterious will and pleasure. Early in 1902 warning had

been publicly uttered in the State against the continued manifestation

of church power in politics. The period of unsettled conditions during

which I was elected had ended and we had opportunity to see the manner

in which the church monarch was resuming his forbidden sway; and we had

occasion to know the indignant feelings entertained by the people of

the United States when they contemplated the flagrant breaking of the

pledge given to the country to secure the admission of Utah. I myself,

after conference with distinguished men at Washington, journeyed to

Utah and presented a solemn protest and warning to the leaders of the

church against the dangerous exercise of their political power. I

did it to repay a debt which I owed to Utah, and not for any selfish

reason. I knew that from the day I uttered that warning the leaders of

the Mormon Church would hate and pursue me for the purpose of wreaking

their vengeance. But as the consequences of their misconduct, their

pledge breaking would fall upon all of the people of the State, upon

the innocent more severely than upon the guilty, I felt that I must

assert my love and gratitude to the State, even though my warning

should lead to my own destruction by these autocrats. If there had

been one desire in my heart to effect a conjunction with this church

monarchy, if I had been willing to retain office as its gift, I would

not have taken this step, for I knew its consequences. I began in that

hour my effort to restore to the people of Utah the safety and the

political freedom which are their right, and I shall continue it while

I live until the fight is won.

The disdain with which that message was received was final proof of

the contempt in which that church monarchy holds the Senate and the

people of the United States, and of the disregard in which the church

monarchy holds the pledges which it made in order to obtain the power

of statehood.

They do not need to utter explicit instructions in order to assert

their demand. The methods of conveying information of their desire

are numerous and sufficiently effective, as is proved by results. To

show how completely all ordinary political conditions, as they obtain

elsewhere in the United States, are without account in Utah, I have but

to cite you to the fact that after the recent election, which gave 57

members out of 63 on joint ballot to the Republican party, and when the

question of my successor became a matter of great anxiety to numerous

aspirants for this place, the discussion was not concerning the fitness

of candidates, nor the political popularity of the various gentlemen

who composed that waiting list, nor the pledges of the legislators, but

was limited to the question as to who could stand best with the church

monarchy; as to whom it would like to use in this position; as to who

would make for the extension of its ambitions and power in the United

States.

THE MORMON MARRIAGE RELATION.

And now I come to a subject concerning which the people of the United

States are greatly aroused. It is known that there have been plural

marriages among the Mormon people, by the sanction of high authorities

in this church monarchy, since the solemn promise was made to the

country that plural marriages should end. It is well known that the

plural marriage relations have been continued defiantly, according to

the will and pleasure of those who had formerly violated the law, and

for whose obedience to law the church monarchy pledged the faith and

honor of its leaders and followers alike in order to obtain statehood.

The pledge was made repeatedly, as stated in an earlier part of these

remarks, that all of the Mormon people would come within the law. They

have not done so. The church monarch is known to be living in defiance

of the laws of God and man, and in defiance of the covenant made with

the country, upon which amnesty by the President, and statehood by the

President and the Congress, were granted.

I charge that every apostle is in large part responsible for this

condition, so deplorable in its effects upon the people of Utah and

so antagonistic to the institutions of this country. Every apostle is

directed by the law-breaking church monarch. Every apostle teaches by

example and precept to the Mormon people that this church monarch is a

prophet of God, to offend or criticise whom is a sin in the sight of

the Almighty. Every apostle helps to appoint to office and sustain the

seven presidents of seventies, who are below them in dignity, and they

are directly responsible for them and their method of life.

It is quite evident that the church monarchy is endeavoring to

re-establish the rule of a polygamous class over the mass of the Mormon

people. Of the apostles not practicing polygamy there is at most only

three or four men constituting the quorum of which this could be

truthfully said. Special reasons may exist in some particular case why

a man in this class has not entered into such relation.

THE GENERAL SITUATION.

Briefly reviewing the matters which I have offered here, and the

logical deductions therefrom, I maintain the following propositions:

We set aside the religion of the Mormon people as sacred from assault.

Outside of religion the Mormons as a community are ruled by a special

privileged class, constituting what I call the church monarchy.

This monarchy pledged the country that there would be no more

violations of law and no more defiance of the sentiment of the United

States regarding polygamy and the plural marriage relation.

This monarchy pledged the United States that it would refrain from

controlling its subjects in secular affairs.

Every member of this monarchy is responsible for the system of

government and for the acts of the monarchy, since (as shown in the

cases of the deposed apostle, Moses Thatcher, and others) the man who

is not in accord with the system is dropped from the ruling class.

This monarchy sets up a regal social order within this Republic.

This monarchy monopolizes the business of one commonwealth and is

rapidly reaching into others.

This monarchy takes practically all the surplus product of the toil of

its subjects for its own purpose, and makes no account to anyone on

earth of its immense secret fund.

This monarchy rules all politics in Utah, and is rapidly extending its

dominion into other States and Territories.

This monarchy permits its favorites to enter into polygamy and to

maintain polygamous relations, and it protects them from prosecution by

its political power.

Lately no effort has been made to punish any of these people by

the local law. On the contrary, the ruling monarch has continued

to grow in power, wealth, and importance. He sits upon innumerable

boards of directors, among others that of the Union Pacific Railway,

where he joins upon terms of fraternity with the great financial and

transportation magnates of the United States, who hold him in their

councils because his power to benefit or to injure their possessions

must be taken into account.

I charge that no apostle has ever protested publicly against the

continuation of this sovereign authority over the Mormon kingdom.

Within a few months past the last apostle elected to the quorum was a

polygamist--Charles W. Penrose--and his law-breaking career is well

known. Previous to 1889 Penrose was living publicly with three wives.

Under false pretenses to President Cleveland he obtained amnesty for

his past offenses. He represented that he had but two wives, and that

he married his second wife in 1862, while it was generally known that

he took a third wife just prior to 1888. He promised to obey the law

in the future, and to urge others to do so; yet after that amnesty,

obtained by concealing his third marriage from President Cleveland,

he continued living with his three wives. His action in this matter

has been notorious. He has publicly defended this kind of law-breaking

on the false pretense that there was a tacit understanding with the

American Congress and people, when Utah was admitted, that these

polygamists might continue to live as they had been living.

And it was this traitor to his country's laws, this unrepentant knave

and cheat of the nation's mercy, this defamer of Congress and the

people, that was elected to the apostleship to help govern the church,

and through the church the State.

Is it not demonstrated that Utah is an abnormal State? Our problem is

vast and complex. I have endeavored to simplify it so that the Senate

and the country may readily grasp the questions at issue.

THE REMEDY.

Will this great body, will the Government of the United States, go on

unheedingly while this church monarchy multiplies its purposes and

multiplies its power? Has the nation so little regard for its own

dignity and the safety of its institutions and its people that it will

permit a church monarch like Joseph F. Smith to defy the laws of the

country, and to override the law and to overrule the administrators of

the law in his own State of Utah?

What shall the Americans of that Commonwealth do if the people of the

United States do not heed their cry?

The vast majority of the Mormon people are law-abiding, industrious,

sober, and thrifty. They make good citizens in every respect except

as they are dominated by this monarchy, which speaks to them in the

name of God and governs them in the spirit of Mammon. Any remedy

for existing evils which would injure the mass of the Mormon people

would be most deplorable. I believe that they would loosen the chains

which they wear if it were possible. I think that many of them pay

blood-money tithes simply to avoid social ostracism and business

destruction. I believe that many of them do the political will of the

church monarch because they are led to believe that the safety of the

church monarchy is necessary in order that the mass may preserve the

right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. The

church monopoly, by its various agencies is usually able to uprear the

injured and innocent mass of the Mormon people as a barrier to protect

the members of that monarchy from public vengeance.

It is the duty of this great body--the Senate of the United States--to

serve notice on this church monarch and his apostles that they must

live within the law; that the nation is supreme; that the institutions

of his country must prevail throughout the land; and that the compact

upon which statehood was granted must be preserved inviolate.

May heaven grant that this may be effective and that the church

monarchy in Utah may be taught that it must relinquish its grasp.

I would not, for my life, that injury should come to the innocent mass

of the people of Utah; I would not that any right of theirs should be

lost, but that the right of all should be preserved to all.

If the Senate will apply this remedy and the alien monarchy still

proves defiant, it will be for others than myself to suggest a course

of action consistent with the dignity of the country.

In the meantime we of Utah who have no sympathy with the-now clearly

defined purpose of this church monopoly will wage our battle for

individual freedom, to lift the State to a proud position in the

sisterhood, to preserve the compact which was made with the country,

believing that behind the brave citizens in Utah who are warring

against this alien monarchy stands the sentiment and power of eighty

two millions of our fellow-citizens.

II.

Foreword.

This speech was delivered in the Provo Tabernacle on the evening of

March 14, 1905, in the presence of upwards of two thousand five hundred

people, and the report of it was taken by Mr. Arthur Winter. When

the speech was first published in full in the _Deseret Evening News_

of March 25, 1905, the following explanatory note preceded it by the

writer:

A report of this speech in a local paper [the _Salt Lake Tribune_]

contained many verbal inaccuracies and crudities which in many

cases were the reporter's, not mine. It is too much to expect that

extemporaneous speech will be free from verbal and rhetorical errors,

and I do not claim that the speech as delivered at Provo was free from

such defects. In the speech as here reported by Mr. Arthur Winter, some

of these crudities have been eliminated so far as they could be and

still retain the structure and spirit of what was said. One item has

been added: a passage relating to the alleged threats against Gentile

industries in the State of Utah.