THE MORMON MURDERS.
MORE TESTIMONY AGAINST THE BISHOP. CONFESSION OF THE BISHOP'S COUNSELOR—HOW THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED AND HUSHED UP—BRIGHAM YOUNG IMPLICATED. [FROM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE.]
SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 13.—In addition to the affidavits sent yesterday, I forward you the confession of J. M. Stewart, the Bishop's counselor. It is important not only in pointing out the murderer of the Parrishes, but in showing the connection of the Mormon Church with the crime. The affidavit of Mrs. Parrish is also im-portant as showing the unwillingness of Brigham Young to assist her in her difficulties.
CONFESSION OF J. M. STEWART, THE BISHOP'S COUNSELOR.
SAN BERNARDINO, July 4, 1859.
At a certain time during the notable "Reformation,” I think in the Winter of 1857, I was, as one of the Bishop's counselors, presiding and speaking at a ward meeting in the house of G. G. (Duff) Potter, where a brother coun- selor, N. T. Guyman, came to the door and said, "Brother Stewart, please to cut your remarks short; the Bishop wishes to see you.” I did so, and went with him to the Bishop's council room, an upper room in his dwelling house. As this was in the night our movements were perhaps observed by but very few. The Bishop (John- son) Guyman, and myself and some few others whom I cannot now identify composed this council. After all had assembled, and were orderly seated, the Bishop stated the object of the meeting, which was that we might hear a letter which he had just received from "President Young." He there read the letter, the purport of which was about this:
A COMMAND FROM YOUNG.
He, Brigham, had information that some suspicious characters were collecting at the "Indian Farm" on Spanish Fork, and he wished him (Bishop Johnson) to keep a good look out in that direction; to send some one out there to reconnoiter and ascertain what was going on, and if they (those suspicious characters) should make a break and be pursued, which he required, he "would be sorry to hear a favorable report;" "but," he wrote, "the better way is to lock the stable door before the horse is stolen." He then admonished the Bishop that he (the Bishop) understood these things, and would act accordingly, and to "keep this letter close." This letter was over Brigham's signature, in his own peculiarly rough hand, which we all had the privilege of seeing. About this matter there was no counseling. The word of Brigham was the law, and the object was that we might hear it.
Early one morning during the week succeeding the council, Parrish and Durfee called at my house (or office), for I was the precinct magistrate, when Parrish, under oath, said his horses were stolen the night before from his stable, and asked for a search-warrant. I could find no law in Utah making it the duty or the privilege of a jus-tice or any other officer to grant a search-warrant, yet I considered that there could be no harm in it, and there- fore granted it, directing it to the sheriff, his deputy, or any constable of Utah County, requiring him to search diligently Utah County for such property. Parrish wished me to deputize Durfee to search, but I refused. It was at this time that Durfee aimed, as I understood it, to give me a hint of his situation. "In private," he said, "you know how I stand." I replied "yes," suppos-ing that he alluded to his apostacy, which he had made as public as he dare, when he replied, "all's right in Israel!" I did not understand him.
A SECRET COUNCIL.
The next Saturday night there was a council which I attended by special invitation. In the council were, as well as I remember, Bishop A. Johnson, J. M. Stewart, A. F. McDonald, N. T. Guyman, L. Johnson, C. Sanford, and W. J. Earl. I am pretty certain there were others present, but I cannot now name them. Oh, yes! Potter and Durfee were present. They came in with blankets wrapped around them. In this council there was a good deal of secret talking, two or three individually getting close together, and talking in suppressed tones, which I, being dull of hearing, did not wholly understand. I un-derstood, however, when Potter requested of the Bishop the privilege to kill Parrish wherever he could find "the damned curse," and the Bishop's reply, "Shed no blood in Springville."
During this council, to the best of my recollection, I scarcely spoke a word. I understood that blood would probably be shed, not in Springville, but out of it. I did in my heart disapprove of the course, but I was in the current and could not get out, and policy said to me: "Hold your tongue for the present." This was Saturday night, and, as well as I remember, I heard no more of the affair till the next (Sunday) night one week; that is, eight days after.
I knew nothing of the plan nor of the deeds until near midnight, when I was awakened and requested to go and hold an inquest over some dead bodies. W. J. Earl, one of the city Aldermen, and my predecessor in the magiste-rial office, made this requirement of me, and undertook to dictate to me in selecting a jury. I considered my po-sition for a moment, and concluded to suffer myself to be dictated to, unless an attempt should be made to lead me to the commission of crime. In that case I felt that I would try mighty hard to back out.
THE INQUEST.
I obeyed my manager, W. J. Earl, in selecting the jury. Having summoned a part of the number requisite, and being told by Earl that the jury could be filled out after we got there, we proceeded along the main road, south, about one mile from the public square to the corner of a field, known as “Child's Corner. Here laid the bodies of William R. Parrish and G. G. Potter (Duff Potter). They had evidently been killed in the road, and dragged to the place where they lay. I proceeded to fill up and qualify the jury. The examination took place under my own ob- servation. It was a protracted one—a minute record be- ing kept by A. F. McDonald, foreman. Before we got through with young Parrish, Beason (so called) was dis- covered dead, about 15 rods south-east of the other bodies. The verdict was, "That they came to their deaths by the hands of an assassin or assassins to the jury unknown."
The bodies were hauled to the school-house by George Mackinzie, who, by somebody's direction, I suppose, was on the ground with his team and wagon. The bodies were guarded through the night by the police.
THE BISHOP'S DIRECTIONS.
The next morning the Bishop sent word to me to bury the bodies, which I did, and made out the bill according to the charges of the men employed. I was told to take charge of the goods, chattels, and clothes of the murdered men, which I did, and in due time delivered every article to their families, except a butcher-knife, claimed by Mrs. Parrish, which I did not suppose belonged to her, and which I would not give to her (professing ignorance of its whereabouts) till I could get directions from the Bishop. She never got the knife; it was subsequently lost in my family.
Some considerable time—I don't know how long—after the murder, I spoke to Bishop Johnson concerning the above-named knife. I supposed, from the fact that when the knife came into my possession it was all over blood, that it had been used by the assassin; but the Bishop thought differently. During our chat about the knife, and the murder, the Bishop asked:
“Do you know who done that job?”
I replied, "No." He then asked:
"Have you any idea?"
"No."
"Can't you guess?"
I answered: "I guess I could."
He then said: "Well, guess."
"I guess William Bird."
He replied: "You are pretty good at guessing."
I know nothing which would naturally have caused me to suspect Wm. Bird, even as much as some others; but there was an internal prompting right at the moment, and I spoke accordingly.
THE MOCK COURT.
I suppose I had as well say something about the noto- rious "Court" in which Durfee and O. Parrish were tried for the murder of Potter and the Parrishes. H. H. Kearns, Captain of the Police, came to me on Monday, the next day after the murder, and told me that I must hold Court some time that afternoon and examine Durfee and young Parrish in regard to the murder, as he had them prisoners on that account. I understood that it was only to be done as a show or kind of a "put off." I ordered the prisoners before me, and, as I was directed, swore them to tell the truth in the case then under con-sideration. Durfee made his statement first, which was about what has hitherto been revealed. He of course told what he had been instructed to tell. Parrish, as might have been expected, chose not to know anything of consequence. It was certainly wise in him to be ignor-ant.
BIRD'S CONFESSION.
It would have been in order, while on the subject of the "knife," to state that which I will now state. Before the Bishop and I had got through our chat, Bird came in sight, and the Bishop called to him. He came to us, and during our conversation coolly and deliberately made the following statement:
"When Potter fell I clinched Parrish, and killed him with my knife."
I know that Parrish was killed with a knife. Potter was killed with what appeared to be one load of four balls from a shot-gun, entering just under his left breast. Beason Parrish was also killed by one or two shots in his body, the particular locality not now remembered.
Thus I have written all that I can think of of that trag-ical affair. I am perfectly aware that that portion of the community who have no knowledge of the undercurrents and wire-workings of Mormonism will consider me a "poor concern" for suffering myself to be swayed in my official duties by ecclesiastical dignitaries, for suffering myself, in the case above mentioned to be governed by the Bishop. But I perfectly understood that to act with- out counsel, or to disobey counsel, was to transgress; and if I had never understood it before, I could not but understand it then, by the example of the three dead bodies right before my eyes, that "the way of the trans- gressor is (was) hard."
I might make some revealments, but they would not be very important concerning the case of Mr. Forbes. I may make them at some future time.
I will now close. I am, &c., your humble servant,
J. M. STEWART.
AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. PARRISH.
Mrs. Alvin L. Parrish, sworn: A few days before my husband and son were murdered, Wilber J. Earl and Abram F. McDonald came to my house about dusk in the evening and took my husband out; my son fol-lowed, and McDonald drove him back; then I went out, and crossed the street into my nephew's house, and stood at the open window, the house being an unfinished one, and heard Mr. McDonald tell my husband that he could never see his gray horses any more; my husband replied that if he would let him go to Brigham Young he would bring papers to show that the horses belonged to him, and to no one else. McDonald said, "We don't care for Brig-ham Young, and if you start to see him you will never get there." My husband then opened his bosom, and told them "if they wanted to do it, to do it now." McDonald said, "We don't want to shed blood now." On the follow-ing Sunday Mr. Parish started with Abraham Durfee from our house about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and in the evening Mr. Durfee came back and took my two sons out; soon after they had left the house I heard a gun fire! This was a little after dark, and shortly after that the police came and searched my house for Orrin, and told me that they wanted his body, dead or alive. I told them he was not there, but Carnes, the captain of the police, told them to search the house, and they searched it. I remained in the house all night, much alarmed, and very lonesome. I went to the door occa-sionally, and saw some men fixing a wagon, and passing frequently, with candles in their hands, from John Dai-ley's house to the wagon. I saw the wagon move off in the direction my sons went. It proved to be the wagon that brought in the dead bodies. G. McKenzie told me that he was ordered by the Bishop to drive the wagon out, but did not know at the time what he was going after; that when they arrived at the place they threw the dead bodies of my husband, my son, and Mr. Potter into the wagons like dead hogs, and said, "This is the way the damned apostates go!"
The next morning after this, my brother-in-law, Ezra Parrish, came to my house and told me that Orrin was at his house, guarded by four policemen. He told me to come over, but to be as calm as possible. I went over and found Orrin there in bed guarded by four men. I knew none of the men but William Johnson. I stepped toward the bed to ask my son if he knew where his father was. He said he had not seen him. Soon after that my son Albert came and told me that his father, his brother, and Mr. Potter were all dead in the school-house. Soon after that they came and took Orrin over to the school- house. I followed, but was so prostrated by the circum- stances that I was not able to go alone, but was assisted by my nephew and brother-in-law. When I got to the school-house I heard them ask Orrin if he had been acces-sory to the murder. He stated on oath that he had not, and that he did not know who did it. Orrin was at this time very much embarrassed. He was discharged after they found that he knew nothing.
After the burial I was required to pay $48, for funeral expenses, before I could get back my husband's watch and other things he had with him. On a second visit to the School-house, I noticed that a knife had been drawn through my husband's left hand, the fore-finger hung by the skin; his hand and left arm were all cut up with a knife, and a large gash was in the back of his head. One of his suspenders was cut off; then there was another wound lower down, and more in front. There were 48 holes in his coat, all caused by stabs; examined and counted them myself. Mr. Parrish's throat was cut from ear to ear; his watch had saved him one stab; there was the mark of a knife on it. There were four bullet-holes in my son's left'side; my husband had a territorial draft in his pocket-book when he left home, calling for $500; I never got it back; when I got his pocket book it had a few jewels in it belonging to my sons, a medal, a half-dollar, a 25-cent piece; the paper containing the conversation between my husband and Earl and McDonald was in it, but it was not re-turned.
This Spring, when Bishop Johnson of Springville went to the Legislature, I asked him why the horses had not been returned. Told him about ten yards of linen which had been stolen. Asked the Bishop about the Territorial order; he said he had it probably among his papers, and would give it to me if he could find it. He never gave it to me. Mr. Dibble, who was on the Coroner's inquest, said that when he examined the pocket-book on the in-quest he saw no papers of any kind.
EFFORTS TO RECOVER PROPERTY.
I went to Salt Lake City in July, 1859, to see Brigham Young, in accordance with a promise I had made my husband. Brigham told me he knew nothing of the affair. Springville was 15 years ahead of him; he would have stopped it had he known anything about it. I asked him about the horses. He said he would do every-thing he could do to have the horses restored to me; he would write to me after seeing Mr. Balloch and others; told him Gee had possession of the horses, and that he had said nothing but an order from Brigham could get them. Brigham's clerk put down in a book what I said. Brigham never wrote to me. I have been to see him this Winter. He would not see me. It was between Christmas and New-Year. Could not see him. I went to Brigham Young's office about 8 o'clock in the morning, and sat there till 4 o'clock in the afternoon. His clerks were present. At 4 o'clock I was told that I could not see Brigham Young that day, but to call next day be-tween 8 and 11 a. m. I came next morning, and was told that I could not see him—that he saw nobody. Mr. Sharp, Chief of the Police in Salt Lake City, when I was going out, called me back and asked me what I would do about it. I said I did not know. I went to John Young's, from there to Mr. Lang's, and noticed Mr. Sharp and one of the clerks following me. They called after me. They said I should wait till the soldiers had left, and I would get back my horses and four-fold with them. It would be best for me to drop the matter. They told me to go to Bishop Hunter and try to settle the matter. I would not go.
The first day I was in Brigham's office I was told by the clerk, Brigham Young don't want to see anybody; such business should be put in the hands of the bishops; I should see Bishop Hancock, Bishop Johnson, and Bishop Roeberry, and they would settle it. The clerk said Brigham had told him to tell me he did not want to see me. There had been public preaching at Springville to the effect that no apostates would be allowed to leave; if they did, hog-holes would be stopped up with them. I heard these sermons myself. Elder Hyde and President Snow and others preached that way. My husband was no believer in the doctrine of killing to "save," as taught by the teachers.
ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT.
The name of the person making this affi-davit is left out in the copy by request, as his life would, he thinks, be endangered by the publication:
"Territory of Utah, Utah County, ss.—* * * Being duly sworn, says he has lived in Springville since 1853. Was there at the time the Parrishes and Potter were mur- dered; had a conversation a short time before the mur- der with Moses Daily, jr.; he said that they had been ordered never to let the Parrishes go out of Springville or the Territory; said he called on me to join them; I told him I would not, that I did no such jobs; he then said, "For God's sake don't tell of it;" he said the orders were from Orson Hyde; Orson Hyde had just been preaching at Springville; three or four days afterward Daily came to me and said: "I am glad of one thing—they have shouldered off taking care of the Parrishes on to somebody else;" he appeared glad that he had got rid of it."
"Sworn to and signed before me this 1st day of April,
A.D., 1859. JNO. CRADLEBAUGH,
"Judge Second Judicial District."
TESTIMONY OF—PHILIPS.
Philips, being sworn, says he lives in Provo; that on the Sunday of the murder he was at a meeting in Provo; President Snow, President of this State, and others, preached from a wagon; their preaching at that time was pretty much about apostates and persons going to leave the Territory, and how they would be disposed of. After the sermon, President Snow inquired if there was anybody going to Springville that day. A man by the name of Nethercot said he was going; Nethercot went up, and Snow handed him a letter, and told him he wanted it delivered to Bishop Johnson that day, without fail, and remarked that "dead men tell no tales." Nether- cot took the letter.
POLYGAMY ON TRIAL.
OPINION OF CHIEF-JUSTICE M'KEAN ON THE BRIGHAM YOUNG CASE.
[FROM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE.]
SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 12.—The fact that Brigham Young has appeared in Court to answer to the charge of "lascivious intercourse" with 16 wives is a great point gained for the cause of right and a terrible humiliation to the prophet. No one unacquainted with the fanaticism that has reigned here for a score of years can form any idea of the importance of this triumph to law and order. A few years ago Brigham Young would have snapped his fingers at the Federal Judge, but the division in his own camp, the uncertainty of the future, and the known determination of the Government to support the officers of justice have all suggested obedience. He professes that it is "stooping to conquer," and that he is certain to be fully acquitted of all that is charged against him. But he never before was opposed by the men of energy and determination who are now the representatives of the Government and people of the United States.
The following able opinion of the Chief-Justice, de- livered this forenoon in the Third District Court will be read with interest by the people everywhere:
OPINION OF CHIEF-JUSTICE M KEAN.
STATEMENT: The defendant is indicted for lewd and lascivious asso- ciation and cohabitation with 16 women, not being married to them. The indictment is under the following statute: 'If any man or woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, * * * every such person so offending shall be pun-ished by imprisonment not exceeding ten years, and not less than six months, and fined not more than $1,000, and not less than $100, or both, at the discretion of the Court." (Laws of Utah, p. 53, sec. 32.)
The indictment contains 16 counts and charges as many offenses, ex-tending from the year 1854 to the present time, there being no statute of limitations. The defendant moves to quash this indictment on the fol-lowing grounds: "First: That in said indictment, as appears on the face thereof, this defendant is charged with 16 distinct and different felonies, alleged to have been committed at 16 different times and places, with 16 different persons, the same not being different parts of one offense, nor different statements of the same offense, or such alleged felonies being in any wise connected with each other. Second: That each and every count of said indictment, as appears upon the face thereof, is vague, uncertain, and indefinite in the allegation as to the time when said offenses, or any of them, were committed."
McKean, C. J.—Although the question of selecting, summoning, and impanneling the Grand Jury which pre- sented the indictment is not involved in the motion be- fore the Court, one of the counsel for the defendant saw fit in his remarks to denounce the jury as having been selected and impanneled in a manner unprecedented either in Europe or America. Had the counsel flrst in- vestigated this question, he would have found that when Brigham Young was Governor of this Territory, and his selected friend, Judge Snow, now one of his counsel, sat upon the District and the Supreme Bench of the Terri- tory, grand jurors were for years selected, summoned, and impanneled precisely as they now are. And the counsel would also have found that in reported cases United States Judges, even within the States, have sometimes found the State statutes inapplicable, and have ordered juries to be procured substantially as they are procured in this Territory. But all this has nothing to do with the motion before the Court. The motion to quash assails the indictment—not the Grand Jury that found it. Let us return, therefore, to the record.
One of the counsel for the defendant has rightly said that the Court should render such a decision upon this motion as shall subserve the interests of tbe public and the rights of the defendant. What are those interests? What are those rights? It is agreed by counsel on both sides that at common law the Court might either grant or refuse this motion, in the exercise of a sound discre-tion. Many authorities were cited on the argument sus-taining this proposition. One of the counsel for the de-fendant sought to account for the fact that there seems to be a preponderance of authority against the granting of such motion to quash, by conjecturing that when such motions are granted, they are not often reported. He also urged that this Court is not bound to respect any decisions rendered outside of this Territory, unless they be rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Without pausing now to consider these arguments, let us proceed to inquire what are the interests of the public and the rights of the defendant, as involved in this mo- tion. It is unquestionably to the interest of the public that a man indicted for crime, if guilty, should be con-victed; if innocent, acquitted; and that, too, with as little delay as may be consistent with the rights of the accused, and with those safeguards which expe-rience has approved. But will it promote the interests and rights either of the public or of an accused citizen to have many indictments and many trials for offenses of the same class, rather than one indictment and one trial covering the whole? The Court is bound to presume that the evidence before the Grand Jury authorized, nay required, the sixteen charges contained in this indict-ment. If, now, the Court should grant the motion of the defendant, and quash the indictment because it con- tains these sixteen counts, the Grand Jury, which is not yet discharged, would be in duty bound to find 16 new in-dictments. Or, if the Court should compel the prosecu- tion to elect to go to trial on some one count only—strik-ing out the others, then the Grand Jury would be in duty bound to find 15 new indictments. Thus, in either event, the defendant would be subjected to 16 indictments and 16 trials. How this could promote the interest and rights either of the public or of the defendant, is not easy to perceive, nay, it is difficult to imagine anything more harassing and vexatious to the defendant. Indeed the learned counsel for the defendant failed to show wherein this would be any favor to their client. Had 16 indict-ments been found in the first instance instead of one, could not the defendant's counsel urge, with irresistible arguments, that they should be consolidated?
But is there not some legislation bearing upon this question? By act of Congress, approved Feb. 26, A. D. 1853, it is provided that, "Whenever there shall be several charges against any persons for the same act or trans- action, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments, the whole may be joined in one indictment in several counts; and if two or more indictments shall be found in such cases, the court may order them consolidated." (10 Statutes at Large, p, 162. 1 Brightley's Digest, p. 223, Sec. 117.)
What is the just construction of this statute? Notwith- standing the ingenious efforts of one of the counsel to induce the Court to disregard the views, reasonings, and opinions of other courts, still it may be prudent first to listen to those courts and see if their decisions be reason- able. In the United States agt. Bickford (4 Blatehford's Circuit Court Rep. 337), the indictment contained 100 counts, each one being for a distinct felony, but of the same class. On motion to quash, the Court refused, hold- ing that the joinder of the distinct felonies was war- ranted by the statute cited above. In The United States agt. O'Callahan (6 McLean's Circuit Court Rep. 596), the same doctrine is held. These decisions are entitled to great respect, having been rendered by eminent judges of the Supreme Court of the United States and their Associate District Judges. Indeed, so obviously reason-able and just are they that, were the question a new one, I do not see how I could reach a different conclusion.
In considering the second ground of motion to quash, the meaning of two words—"associate" and "cohabit"—must be carefully kept in mind. Webster defines "as-sociate" thus: "To join in company, as a friend, com-panion, partisan, or confederate." "It conveys the idea of intimate union." He thus defines "cohabit:" "To dwell or live together as husband and wife; usually or often applied to persons not legally married." The of-fense charged in each count could not be predicated of any one moment or instant of time. To commit such an offense a continuous and somewhat protracted period of time is necessitry. There is nothing in this objection.
The learned counsel for the defendant need not be as- sured that any motion which they may make in behalf of their client shall be patiently heard and carefully considered. Nor does the Court intend to restrict them in their arguments, except upon questions already ad- judicated. But let the counsel on both sides, and the Court also, keep constantly in mind the uncommon char- acter of this case. The Supreme Court of California has well said: "Courts are bound to take notice of the political and social condition of the country which they judicially rule." It is, therefore, proper to say that while the case at the bar is called "The People agt. Brigham Young," its other and real title is Federal Authority agt. Polygamic Theocracy. The Government of the United States, founded upon a written Constitution, finds within its jurisdiction another government—claiming to come from God—imperium in imperio—whose policy and prac-tice, in grave particulars, are at variance with its own. The one government arrests the other in the person of its chief, and arraigns it at the bar. A system is on trial in the person of Brigham Young. Let all concerned keep this fact steadily in view; and let that government rule without a rival which shall prove to be in the right. If the learned counsel for the defendant will adduce authorities or principles from the whole range of juris-prudence, or mental, moral or social science, proving that the polygamic practices charged in the indictment are not crimes, this Court will at once quash this indict-ment, and charge the Grand Jury to find no more of the kind.
The pending motion to quash is overruled.
The counsel for Brigham excepted to the ruling. There are two attorneys for The People and nine for Brigham—four Gentiles and five Mormons. A petition is circulating in the city, to Mrs. President Grant, beg-ging her good services in effecting the removal from offices of Judges and U. S. Attorneys who dare to deal with "Brother Brigham."
THE MORMON PERSECUTION.
To the Editor of The Tribune.
SIR: I desire, in a brief statement, to con-firm what "Fair Dealing" has said about the Mormons. It is my fortune to have known and studied the Mormon movement from its home at Kirtland, Ohio, to Missouri, Illinois, and finally to Salt Lake. I was in the West when they were driven out of Missouri, plundered and starv-ing; at Nauvoo, three days after the laying of the founda-tion of the great temple; but I am not a Mormon, and have no sympathy with their system. My conclusions are thus expressed:
1. The Mormons are a deluded people in regard to the divine origin of their creed.
2. They as sincerely believe themselves right as do any Christian sect.
3. They claim the Bible, with their own added revela- tions, as their guide.
4. They do not differ from the other sects any more than the sects from each other.
5. They quote Moses to justify the Kirtland Bank swindle, and their right to inherit the earth as "the Saints of the Lord." The bank swindle has been dupli-cated several times by very pious people of orthodox belief.
6. All that "Fair Dealing" says about their industry, thrift, temperance, gambling, and bawdy-houses, was true until the advent of the Gentiles. They had little use for penal sanctions to law, as they were obedient to their own laws; as a community they were freer from the common vices of civilization than any similar community on the continent, and freer than all others except "untutored savages."
7. No similar community on the continent has achieved in the same time and under similar conditions such ma- terial success. Idleness and hunger were unknown. In- dustry is as much a part of the Mormons' religion as worship is that of the sects. Combining industry with temperance and economy, we get the cause of their thrift. Bring these to bear on New-York City and the United States, with the same administration of the results, and the cry of distress would not be heard in the land; crime would scarcely exist. All this has been achieved—the wilderness of grease—wood, and alkali have been made to blossom as the rose; 150,000 people made wealthy, under a system of taxation the most onerous ever im-posed on a people; all because they work and have cut off the wastes of our methods. Ecclesiastical despotism, combined with necessity, have done this.
8. The competent student of ethnological science will be compelled to admit that they are raising a better breed of children by their method than we produce from the same quality by our method. To those who are dis-satisfied with the present breed, and clamoring for a bet-ter, I commend this part of the subject as worthy of careful study.
9. The idea that Mormonism, limited in territorial boundary to a small district of mountainous country, one-fourth of which can never be made available for hu-man support, can ever seriously disturb our civil or social relations, is too absurd to be entertained for a mo-ment; while the inevitable fate of the whole system is so plainly decreed in the forces at work, that a child may predict it.
10. Cupidity and bigotry, dishonesty and religious in- tolerance, are at the bottom of this raid. The Western adventurers clamoring for their overthrow do not belong to a class celebrated for piety, virtue, or fair dealing. They want the mines, lands, business of the Mormons. Dr. Newman, who made a missionary excursion to Salt Lake City last Summer, and utterly failed to make a single convert, is largely responsible for the present trouble.
11. That the Mormons will tamely submit to the execution of penalties on their leaders is not to be presumed for a moment. They were driven out-side the pale of Christian civilization by the spirit of persecution, into the wilderness, naked, destitute, hun-gry, with only savages for their neighbors. Here they have made a home, a government, thrift, plenty; here they have worshiped according to the dictates of their own consciences, until the cupidity of their enemies has found them out and demanded their overthrow. Here they have been organized, admitted, tolerated and repre-sented in Congress for years without a legal protest. When the enabling act was passed was the time to have provided against this recognition. It is too late now. And this crusade is unworthy the age in which we live, and belongs to the dark ages when crusades were the in- struments of propagating theological dogmas.
New-York, Oct. 19, 1871. JUSTICE.
