New York tribune (daily) no. 9557

              A MORMON LEADER. 

AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH. 
THE VIEWS OF GEORGE Q. CANNON—A DEFENSE OF MORMON MORALS—PLAIN QUESTIONS AND PLAIN ANSWERS. 
[FROM AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE.] 
SALT LAKE, NOV. 12.—The fact is indisputa-ble that the Mormon Church is practically without a head. Whatever excuses may be offered by his friends for his absence from home, there can be no doubt that Brigham is a fugitive from the officers of the law. To be sure he has often visited the Southern settlements at this season of the year, but his departure has not hereto-fore been taken silently and almost alone. In all his previous journeys his progress has been like the tri-umphal march of a conquering hero. His last exit was as the flight of a hunted felon. To-day he rests upon the Arizona line, 300 miles away from the seat of his late Empire, the destiny of which he has swayed with con-ceded skill for 24 years, but in which his rule is practically ended. Though still the nominal "head of the church," he no more governs its affairs than he would were his bones already in the grave which he cannot now long escape, in the natural order of things. His absence does not create so much as a ripple upon the surface of so-ciety. Younger men have taken his place in spiritual affairs, as well as temporal, and, from being his proxies, are now his practical successors. Although he would be unwilling to admit it, those who have watched him narrowly are aware that his intellectual vigor and business capacity have greatly waned during the last few years. No longer the great and powerful leader, he is now unquestionably led by a few of his more vigorous brethren, in whose ability and judgment he has learned to confide. These are the real Mormon leaders, the power behind the throne, and to them must the people look for future guidance. While only a small minority of them can claim great spiritual gifts, and while to the majority the "foolishness of preaching," at least gram-matically and coherently, will never be charged, the little circle aggregates faith in the Mormon doctrines, great business sagacity and experience, and that large and hard-earned wealth which is the legitimate gauge of ability. 
Of these men, I hope to speak fully hereafter, and I shall strive to so photograph them for the readers of THE TRIBUNE, that the future of the organization, which would to-day be a practical nullity but for their vitaliz-ing influence, may be approximately foretold. To-day, I propose to allow one of these men to speak for himself and for the church of which he may yet be the spiritual head. It is useless for the Mormons to seek to conceal the fact that the possibility that a successor for Brigham may soon be needed has been widely discussed of late. During his sickness in September, he inquired of his first counselor, George A. Smith, how he supposed the Church would get along without him in the event of his death. As Brigham's lightest words are looked upon as semi-prophecies by the mass of his followers, this inquiry was accepted as a virtual admission of the probable nearness of that grim Marshal whose process even prophets rarely evade. To another he admitted his waning powers by the remark after his recovery, that he "thought the worn-out boiler might be patched up so as to allow the engine to make a few more trips." But now in addition to his more than three score and ten years, and the growing feebleness which he has long re-sisted but which he is at last compelled to confess, he finds himself a wanderer from home and its comforts; hunted like a dangerous thing beyond the confines of his own dominions; it is not surprising, therefore, that the claims of men to the successorship should be quietly discussed by the public at large, if not by his nearest friends. 
It is admitted that the candidates are in number only two, and that upon one of these the mantle must fall. These are George A. Smith and George Q. Cannon. The former is a cousin of the founder, Joseph—the second officer of the church, and probably the most popular man among the leaders. He is 54 years of age, of huge proportions, and has the reputation of being, like King Cole of convivial memory, "a jolly old soul." To the superficial observer he is little more than this; while to those who have thoughtfully analyzed his qualities, he is a most sagacious and thoughtful man. If his health-somewhat impaired of late—does not fail, he will proba-bly be the immediate successor of the present incumbent of the office of "President." 
Desirous of learning the views of one so near the throne upon numerous topics now under general discus-sion, I called at his residence, and was met with the in-telligence that "President Smith accompanied President Young on his journey to the southern settlements." As the laudable ambition which animates all TRIBUNE cor-respondents to secure the bubble, information, even in the Cannon's mouth, was strong within me, I determined to seek out that younger, though scarce less prominent Saint and Apostle, George Q. Cannon, editor of The Deseret News, and one of the lead-ing pulpit orators of the Mormon faith. I found this gentleman in his great office, surrounded by numerous assistants, and amid a scene of industry so active as to be almost confusing. The News is published in the old "Tithing Office," although the composing-rooms and steam presses are in an adjacent building. Here are prepared and published the various editions of the Church organ, as also a doctrinal paper for children, and those fearfully unreadable volumes upon which, to the unregenerate mind, so much good ink and inoffensive paper have been wasted—the "Book of Mormon," and the "Book of Doctrines and Covenants." 
My possible future "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" proved to be a modest, mild-mannered, smiling gentle-man of 42, stout of flesh, low of stature, rubicund of countenance, and ready of tongue. After a brief and pleasant fusilade of small talk, we settled down to the siege, which, unintentionally to your correspondent, assumed at times the nature of a discussion rather than a series of questions and responses. 
Correspondent—I have called Mr. Cannon, to have a little plain talk with you, and I trust you will not be of-fended if I ask you some questions which may appear impertinent. It is reported that Brigham Young is a fu-gitive from justice. Is it true? 
Cannon—No. Justice is the very thing he desires. He would gladly go any reasonable distance, I believe, to ob-tain it. 
Correspondent—How do you reconcile the fact of his departure under the cover of darkness, with the remark made by him to me a month since, that he should hold himself ready to answer any charge which might be made against him, and should "fight his enemies in their own courts and with their own weapons?" 
Cannon—I was absent at the time of his departure and am not aware that he went away at night. To prevent excitement President Young is fully justified in moving about with as much quietness as possible. He had good reasons to suppose that his trial, upon the only charge which had been made against him, would be deferred, if not till the March term of Court, at least for some weeks. It was President Young's intention, long before any in-dictments had been found against him, to spend the Win-ter in a milder climate, and when he started, there was no reason to suppose that his presence would be required in Salt Lake City for some time. 
Correspondent—Do you believe Brigham would be willing to risk a trial either on the present charges of lascivious cohabitation with his wives and the murder of Yates, or upon a charge of polygamy under the act of Congress of 1862, if he Could be convinced that the trials would be conducted fairly, honestly, and ably?
Cannon—A trial such as you describe—fair, able, and honest—could not, in my opinion, be obtained here as the Court is at present constituted. In fact, everything has been prearranged to prevent such a trial. Nothing less than conviction will satisfy the judge and the offi-cers of the Court. I do not say this at random. Look at the pains which have been taken to set aside the Ter-ritorial statutes which prescribe the mode of impan-eling juries, while, at the same time another statute, the penalties for the violation of which are severe, is selected under which to prosecute. Were a properly selected jury impaneled, either Mormon or non-Mor-mon, no conviction could be secured; but now the United States Marshal goes out on the street with an open venire and selects whom pleases him as jurors. If they are not of the right kind they undergo a process of winnowing after reaching the court-room, which leaves none whose opinion is doubtful. What chance has an in-nocent man, if a prominent Mormon and accused of crime, for his life before such a court? I honestly think that judicial murder is the object aimed at; for the decisions of these courts are final, there is no appeal from them. 
Correspondent—Suppose Congress should pass a law providing for appeals from the decisions of United States Territorial Courts in criminal cases, would your leading men, if convicted, carry up cases, and be governed by the decisions of the higher Court? 
Cannon—It is difficult to say what others would do under suppositious circumstances. If our leading men were convicted I think they would, without doubt, carry up the cases if they had the opportunity; and so fully convinced are they of acquittal by the higher Court that the idea of not being governed by its decision has never entered their minds. 
Correspondent—Let me bring the subject nearer home. You are now under indictment for sexual intercourse with your plural wives. If your case comes to trial do you anticipate a conviction? 
Cannon—I think, as I have said, that I have ample rea-sons to believe that conviction is the settled purpose of the Court and prosecution, evidence or no evidence. 
Correspondent—Well, then, imagine yourself convicted, and that a law exists whereby you can appeal to the Su-preme Court of the United States. You appeal to that tribunal, which affirms the decision of the Court below. Would you then feel it to be your duty to abandon the practice of polygamy? 
Cannon—So confident do I feel that our marriage insti-tution does not conflict with the Constitution, that I never contemplate the possibility of the Supreme Court affirming such a decision as you suggest. In fact, such an affirmation would have been impossible by the Supreme Court at any period since its organization, and would be equally impracticable as the Court is at pres-ent constituted. I state this with the more confidence, because it is not simply my opinion, but the opinion of the best jurists of either hemisphere, the question having been widely discussed. 
Correspondent—Setting aside the religious bearing of the polygamy question, do you believe that the practice, if adopted by the world, would be conducive of morality? 
Cannon—With my views I cannot set aside the religious bearing of polygamy. I am a believer in polygamy be-cause God, through revelation, has commanded it; but I cannot see why it would not be conducive of morality if adopted and honestly entertained by the world. With proper enlightenment, I think the system every way better for both sexes than monogamy. 
Correspondent—But is not polygamy a grievance and an injustice to woman?
Cannon—No, not when engaged in a proper spirit; but any kind of marriage is liable to abuse. There is a class of persons who consider all marriage a grievance and an injustice to woman. But our religion teaches women to view marriage as essential to salvation; it is an ordi-nance entered into for time and to eternity. "The man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord;" they must be united, and, as the Savior says, "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage," they must be united here. We believe that women are more susceptible of religious impressions than men, are more pure, unselfish and true, and that more of them will be saved than of men. To conform to the order of Heaven, they must have husbands; hence their willing-ness to enter into polygamy. Any system which entails daily misery without justifiable cause or compensation is a false system. Polygamy does not have this effect. Let an equal number of polygamic and monogamic house-holds be selected, and, in proportion to the numbers, I am convinced that the aggregate of happiness will be on the side of the former. Among wives whose husbands are polygamists, there must be a sacrifice of selfishness. This their religion enables them to make; yet it brings its compensations in being a more natural state, and pro-ducing a more vigorous posterity. That women are happy in making this sacrifice is evident from the fact that, if the fate of polygamy were left to the decision of the first wives of polygamists, the majority would vote to sustain it. They have proved this many times, and more recently in the petition lately sent to Mrs. Grant. I have not alluded to its effects upon society at large. Wives here have a confidence in the virtue of their husbands which you seek for in vain in the monogamic communi-ties. Whatever relations a man enters into are known to his family, and, in nearly every instance, have their consent. There are no concealments or evasions upon the subject. You must have noticed that, so far as the Mormons are concerned, prostitution is unknown among them. If you consult physicians of long standing in the community they will inform you that through years of practice they have never met a case of the description which furnishes to many physicians, where the "social evil" prevails, a large part of their practice. 
Correspondent—Do you mean by this that polygamy in Utah supplies a demand which such houses would other-wise have to meet? If so, tell me the difference between the two institutions, except in name? 
Cannon—To do away with prostitution, several things are required; first, marriage should be honored, encour-aged, and facilitated; second, if necessary for the mar-riage of women, there should be no legal objection to a man having more than one wife; third, sexual inter-course outside of marriage should be severely punished, especially so far as the men are concerned. That would abolish prostitution. I never compare marriage, singu-lar or plural, with prostitution. There can be no com-parison. The marriage of more than one woman to one man is for the benefit of the women; that each may have a husband and thus honorably fulfil her appointed mater-nal destiny. Houses of prostitution are established to satisfy the lusts of men utterly regardless of what be-comes of the debauched women. 
Correspondent—You appear to look upon polygamy as the one sole panacea for the "social evil." Am I there-fore to infer that, in your opinion, the system would ulti-mately win its way among cultivated nations, without reference to any religious belief? 
Cannon—There are many reasons why it should be-come general in the future, as it has been in the past. 
Correspondent—Do you believe with many Gentiles, and not a few Mormons, that polygamy is dying out? 
Cannon—I do not believe that polygamy will soon die out. Men are not all sufficiently honorable to marry, and while this is the case, there will always be women to whom polygamy will be a boon. Abuse of polygamy ought to die out, and the sooner the better. 
Correspondent—You admit abuses then? 
Cannon—Certainly. "Where is the palace into which foul things sometimes intrude not?" 
Correspondent—But why not abandon polygamy en-tirely, since the practice is so utterly at variance with the opinion of the Christian world and the laws of the land? 
Cannon—Had you asked a Christian in the days of Nero why he did not abandon his faith, which was so utterly at variance with the popular civilization and its opinions, what would have been his reply do you think? Why should we abandon that which we know to be right? Why should any of our fellow-citizens ask us to deny our faith and follow their lead in matters of con-science, when in the practice of our faith we trespass upon no one's rights? The only law of the land which is at variance with it was passed, as we hold, in express violation of the first amendement to the Constitution, and is a measure of religious persecution. 
Correspondent—You seem to construe everything into "religious persecution" which affects one of your people adversely. Do you not believe that the United States authorities should punish crime in Utah as well as else-where?
Cannon—Of course I do. But, as an unprejudiced ob-server, you will not deny that the prosecutions now in progress here show a vindictiveness and partiality not consistent with the dignity of the United States Govern-ment.
Correspondent—Do you believe this warfare to have been authorized by President Grant? 
Cannon—I am informed that he has lately remarked that he hopes to be able to say, in his next annual message to Congress, that polygamy is practically up-rooted, and I have no doubt he believes that this state-ment would greatly aid him in his aspirations for a second term. But I have no idea that he is fully and fairly in-formed as to the unfair and tricky measures employed by his officers here. 
Correspondent—What do you mean by "unfair and tricky measures?" 
Cannon—I need scarcely answer that question, be-cause you know, and this whole community knows, be they friends or enemies, precisely what I mean. But I will answer you. I mean the uniformly unfair and illegal rulings of Judge McKean; the careful packing of all grand and petit juries so as to exclude each and every man who is not an avowed and self-proclaimed hater and abuser of the Mormons; the trick, so generally con-demned by the press East and West—inimical as well as friendly—of indicting and convicting Mormons for po-lygamy, under a Territorial law, passed by a Mormon Legislature, composed chiefly of polygamists, and de-signed to punish lewd persons and fornicators; instead of proceeding under an act passed by Congress to punish the actual offense complained of.
Correspondent—How do you account for the fact that these prosecutions against polygamists were commenced under the Territorial law, and not under the act of Con-gress? 
Cannon—The reasons are obvious, to my mind. First, the act of Congress provides that the second marriage must be proved in order to convict. The prosecution ev-idently finds such proof difficult to obtain. Second, the penalty under the Territorial act is about four times as severe as the other. Third, the prosecution seek to hu-miliate us by distorting our own laws to suit their pur-pose. Fourth, they fear that we might possibly carry the cases tried under the Congress act up on a writ of error, which could not be done under our Territorial laws. 
Correspondent—There is abundant testimony to the fact that polygamy was really practiced by members of your Church as early as 1845, even while its existence was openly denied and denounced by your elders and in your publications. Do you consider that equivocation commendable? 
Cannon—I never denied polygamy when I knew it was a doctrine of this Church. If others have done so they can answer to themselves. The practice of polygamy was commanded by the Almighty in a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, on the 12th day of July, 1843. I know there were some who were ignorant of the revela-tion for a considerable period, and who therefore hon-estly denied the doctrine. While equivocation may not be commendable, I can imagine circumstances where it would be defensible. 
Correspondent—If it was proper to "deny the faith" in the matter of polygamy in the early days of the prac-tice, as a Mormon paper, The Times and Seasons, did in 1844 (page 423), and as The Millennial Star, another Church organ, did in 1845 (vol. vi, p. 22), as well as in 1848 (vol. x, p. 157), why is it not equally proper now? 
Cannon—I never denied the faith in the matter of polygamy in the early days of the practice, and cannot admit its propriety in my own case either then or now. But circumstances alter cases. What is proper to avow at one time it may be improper to avow at another time. Everybody knows this. As a people we have always been remarkably frank in avowing our belief. It is this frankness which shocks many people. 
Correspondent—Do you believe that Mormonism has improved the worldly condition of its followers and has made them better men and women? 
Cannon—I have no doubt of it. That it has improved the outward condition of the people, nearly all of whom were exclusively poor before coming here, and all or nearly all of whom now own land and live in their own houses, you will admit. Not one case of starvation or absolute suffering for lack of food has ever occurred among us. That the influence of the Mormon faith has made the people better, nobler, and purer, no one who knows them intimately can deny. Licentiousness, in-temperance and vice have rarely existed in this or any Mormon community. Persons upon whose characters the least stain has been known to rest have never been received into the Church until they have manifested the most sincere repentance, and have proved their sincerity by a pure and honest life. The Mormon Church now numbers not less than 250,000 souls, and to all of these have come nobler views of life and its duties, a fervor of religious feeling in the presence of which no impurity or dishonesty can possibly exist; ele-vation of character, and material prosperity such as few out of this multitude could have otherwise enjoyed. Have not the Mormons then reduced the sum of human evils and largely increased the sum of human happiness? What system has done more than this? What one claims to have done more? When you charge us with offenses let me ask you to tell me, if you can, what religious sys-tem has always been blameless? What one has offended no moral sense, perpetuated no erroneous and dangerous doctrines, resorted to no violent measures, cherished no animosities, and sanctioned no crimes? Is not a so-called "Christian Church" now instigating the law to acts of lawlessness? and does not the spirit of religious persecution inform and animate the present crusade against a rival creed? In this respect we might well claim to be "holier than thou." We make no war upon other creeds. We say to each and every denomination, Come and build your churches, and though, as now, we outnumber you as a hundred to one, we will never mo-lest or persecute you. Your religion is a matter between you and your God; ours is not less so with us. Are you willing to treat us as well as we treat you? 
Correspondent—But we see immorality, in the name of religion, in your system. 
Cannon—Pardon me if I give the lie to that assertion. You discover no immorality in our system. To give em-phasis to my assertion, let me ask you if you have ever met any members of our Church in your travels outside of Utah? Correspondent—I have, hundreds of them. 
Cannon—Well, then, I challenge you to point out one act of licentiousness, impurity, profanity, dishonesty, intemperance, or vice, on the part of any Mormon, here or elsewhere. You cannot do it! Publish this challenge as widely as you please, and you shall find that while the whole Christian world will assert all manner of evil of us, not one credible witness will be able to speak ill of us from what he knows, or to testify against us from what he has seen. Every fragment of valid evidence will be found to proceed from the mouth of that common liar—"common rumor." 
Correspondent—When I spoke of "immorality in the name of religion" I of course alluded to polygamy, which to our civilization is at once anomalous and offensive. 
Cannon—How offensive? Does it hurt you? Did you ever see any person who was injured by it? 
Correspondent—Mrs. Hawkins whose husband is now under sentence for the crime says she was. 
Cannpn—The testimony proved that Mrs. Hawkins was a very uncomfortable person, who would have been un-happy under any circumstances. Possibly Mr. Hawkins was guilty of favoritism as charged. If so, he acted very unwisely, and did not fully live his religion. But the Hawkins case represents no general sentiment. It is ex-ceptional in every way. Before Johnson's army was sent here by Buchanan to destroy us, it was widely published that as soon as an opportunity offered the Mormon wives would seek refuge with the army from their oppressors—their husbands. The army came, but not a woman deserted. And now the Court comes and opens its arms to all who seek such relief as Courts can give, but no woman flies to its embraces, save Mrs. Hawkins, the termagant, as all peo-ple say, the denouncer of the new religion which she solemnly espoused, and now declares to be a "damned doctrine" in which she "never believed." But you charge that polygamy is an anomaly as well as an of-fense. There again you are wrong. In your narrow circle it is no doubt anomalous. But if you will travel and read the history of all nations and all times, you will find that polygamy is and has been practiced by all but a minute fraction of the human race, and that some of the most powerful, cultivated, and happy peoples have known no other system. Yet you oppose your minute fraction against the united voice of the majority of man-kind. I do not object to your opposition. I only object to your persecution. I do not say that you shall believe and act as I do, or be deprived of your liberty, even though I am in the majority, and have been since the world began, and must be till time shall end. 
Correspondent—Let me refer to other crimes charged against you. There is a very general and widespread belief that many apostates from the Mormon faith, as well as many Gentiles who have been considered ene-mies, have been murdered here by direction of the Mor-mon Church authorities. What have you to say to this? 
Cannon—Nothing. I have committed no murder; I do not know of any one else having committed murder. These stories have been fabricated. There is no place on this continent where the lives and property of all classes have been more safe than in Utah Territory. Our citi-zens have endured insults and abuse from apostates and others, which, if they had been leveled against other communities by persons resident in their midst, would have provoked riots and possibly the organization of vigilance committees. 
Correspondent—There was the case of the Parrishes, for complicity in which one of your Bishops, Johnson, is now under indictment—I suppose no doubt exists that a murder was committed there? 
Cannon—If the testimony of the self-confessed mur-derer, Durfee, can be relied upon, I suppose there was murder. I was away from Utah during that and subse-quent years, and know only about the case from rumor. Durfee, I understand, says he killed somebody, and tries to implicate others in the transaction. The Parrishes, whom I never knew, were said to be abominably vile and licentious in every way. The fact that Johnson is re-leased on bail shows pretty plainly the opinion enter-tained by the Court respecting his case. 
Correspondent—Then the case of Dr. Robinson, who is declared to me to have been a good, Christian young-man. Is it not clear that he was shot by Mormons while on a professional errand by night? 
Cannon—A strict investigation of this case, directly after the occurrence, in which ex-Gov. Waller of Cali-fornia took an active part as legal adviser in an attempt to implicate the Mormons, failed to elicit, so far as I ever heard, a scintilla of evidence against them. Had such evidence been obtained it would have been proclaimed trumpet-tongued through the land in a tangible shape, and not as bare assertion. I have heard that when the investigation took a turn In a direction exculpatory of the Mormons it was arrested. It has been reported, how truly I know not, that "galvanized Yanks," who had been punished for misconduct at Camp Douglass, of which he was post-surgeon, threatened his life. Certainly the Mormons had nothing to gain by his death. But why should this community be held responsible for the mur-der of Dr. Robinson? Mr. Nathan was killed in New-York. He was a Jew. His assassin is yet unknown. How would the Christian citizens of New-York feel to have his death laid to their door, or to be held account-able for his assassination? 
Correspondent—But the "Morrisites," as they were called, in which case the killing was not denied. How do you explain away the charge of cold-blooded murder made against the Mormons in that case? 
Cannon—The Morrisite case was simply a process of law. A band of people had organized themselves and commenced depredations upon the stock of citizens. Two men, whose stock had been stolen, went to their camp in search of their property. They were seized im-prisoned, and their lives were threatened. Measures were taken to release them by civil process, but in vain. The Chief-Justice of the Territory called for a posse, which was at first denied by the Executive, but which, after re-peated attempts on the part of the Sheriff to serve the writs had failed, was furnished. In the meantime Morris and his people had intrenched themselves, determined to resist the officers by force of arms. They shot and killed two of the posse, but were finally captured, some of their number being killed in the attack upon their camp. If ever officers of the law were justified in using force, it was in this case; and had this affair oc-curred in any other community, nothing condemnatory of the officers would have been heard. An attempt has been made to show that there was unnecessary billing on the part of the posse after the surrender; but the facts are, that after the rioters' stronghold had been en-tered and their arms stacked, Morris incited his follow-ers to rush for their arms, he himself leading the way, for the purpose of shooting the Marshall and the few men who were admitted. This treachery was only prevented by the prompt shooting down of Morris and one or two more who were in the act of seizing their guns. 
Correspondent—It has been charged that the then Chief-Justice of the Territory, who was instrumental in procuring that raid upon the Morrisites, was assisted by the then Governor, and that both were influenced either by the Mormon leaders or by a desire to secure their favor. Is this view probably correct? 
Cannon—It is not correct. Their conduct was such as might be expected from officers sworn to maintain the laws under similar circumstances in any State or Terri-tory, and nothing more. 
Correspondent—Were these Morrisites not apostates, and was it not a great satisfaction to the Mormons to have them broken up, and their leaders destroyed? 
Cannon—They were apostates. Their being broken up and their leaders being destroyed was no satisfaction to the people, except, perhaps, those who had suffered from their thievish propensities. Our experience has taught us that violence is a bad weapon to use against any sys-tem, true or false. It was no wish of the Mormons to form this posse; in fact, President Young expressed his views of the inexpediency of calling it out. 
Correspondent—But the Mountain Meadow massacre, in which more than a hundred immigrants—men, women, and children—were butchered. Do you deny that Mor-mons had a hand in that ? 
Cannon—I cannot deny it, but I do not believe it. If they did, no punishment can be too severe for them. It was clearly the work of Indians, who have always been dangerous in those parts. President Young has repeat-edly expressed the desire that the facts of the case should be investigated by the officers of the law, in order that the terrible stigma should be removed from the Mormons. 
Correspondent—Do you believe Brigham Young, Daniel H. Wells, or Hosea Stout authorized or in any way abet-ted the killing of Yates, as charged in the indictment? 
Cannon—I do not. 
Correspondent—If you were directed by Brigham Young to kill a person, would you consider it your duty to obey? 
Cannon—I consider your question an insult to me and to President Young. I never suppose any such contin-gency. I would be as likely to commit such a deed as he to counsel it. 
Correspondent—You were excluded from the Grand Jury by Judge McKean. Let me ask whether you would, if allowed to serve, vote to convict a brother Mormon under any circumstances? 
Cannon—Mr. Correspondent, would not a Baptist con-sider you impertinent if you were to ask him if he would convict a brother Baptist? If I were to sit on a jury I should endeavor to mete out justice to all, Mormon or non-Mormon. 
Correspondent—In your paper of Oct. 4, you published an editorial item from which I will read: "It would be an excellent thing for the names of all those who are en-gaged in attempting to harass the people, and eat out their substance, to be taken and held in remembrance for future use. Somebody will have to pay the costs of all these unrighteous proceedings, with interest, too. A day of reckoning will come, and if at that day the immediate authors of these proceedings shall have gone to their own place, their children, where they have any, can be called on to pay the accumulated debt, even though they have to sell themselves, body and soul, to do it. They cannot escape ultimate retribution." Now, let me ask, what did you mean by this? Your lan-guage is threatening, and your threats are evidently aimed at the officers of the General Government kere. What is this penalty which you propose to inflict upon the persons to whom you allude, or their children, and how do you expect to collect the debt of which you speak? 
Cannon—I threaten nobody, nor do I propose to inflict any penalty upon anybody. It is a divine and natural law that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the heads of the children. I consider that the present crusade against the Mormons is wholly unjustifiable and unmitigatedly malicious and wicked, and, therefore, as men are to be held accountable for the deeds done in the body, I ex-pect to see the time when justice will overtake the in-stigators and perpetrators of these evil actions, and they must pay the penalty of their crimes in oppressing the Mormons. The Bible emphatically says, "The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet." I believe in the Bible, and expect that to come to pass in regard to the Mor-mons and all crusaders against them. It will be highly interesting to trace the hand of the Lord in accomplish-ing this remarkable overturn and retribution. 
Correspondent—Who, in your opinion, will succeed Brigham Young as President of the Church? 
Cannon—I have no opinion upon the subject. Presi-dent Young has outlived many prominent young men, and may outlive many more; for he is as likely to live 20 years yet as almost any man of my acquaintance. He is of a long-lived family. His grandmother lived to be 98 years old; her sister lived to the age of 100 years. His father was near 80 when he died, and his death was the result of exposure in being mobbed, and of mortifi-cation at the thought that he, a Revolutionary soldier, should be driven by violence from a part of that land for which he had fought. The President and three brothers, two older than himself, are well-preserved men. His oldest brother died about two years ago, aged 78, and his death was hastened by an accident. He has cousins here who are upward of 80 years old, one verging on to 90, and all likely to live some years yet. Beside this in-herited longevity, he has the prayers of the thousands of his people here in the mountain regions, from Idaho to Arizona, and scattered all over the world, that God will preserve his life. 
Correspondent—Many express the belief that at the death of Brigham the whole Mormon structure will fall in pieces. Of course you don't believe this? 
Cannon—Certainly not. A hope of this kind animated the murderers of the prophet Joseph Smith. They sup-posed he was the soul of the system, and that it was only necessary to remove him to destroy Mormonism. The history of the past 27 years has shown how falla-cious are these hopes. God is abundantly able to take care of his own work. 
Correspondent—Your name has been mentioned in connection with the successorship. How does this thought strike you? 
Cannon—As most unwarrantable. A person who men-tions it in such a connection betrays gross ignorance of the organization of the Church. Here the interview terminated.