LORENZO SNOW, President of the Mormon Church. BRIGHAM YOUNG. WILFORD WOODRUFF, Late President of the Mormon Church.
SHALL THE MORMON QUESTION BE REVIVED?
BY BRIGHAM YOUNG
ATTEMPTS are being made to revive the Mormon question. The bulk of the people of the coun-try are not correctly informed upon the sub-ject. Where genuine information exists there is little or no disposition to engage in a crusade against the Mormons. They have had a check-ered history from the inception of their community, in 1830, but in order to understand their present status it is only necessary to deal with their career of later years.
From a period dating back to a time shortly subsequent to the founding of the Mormon Church its adherents be-lieved in, and a limited number of them—estimated at not more than two per cent—practised, patriarchal (or plural) marriage, believing it to be a divine institution. In 1862 an anti-polygamy law was passed by Congress. It pro-vided penalties for the punishment of men who married women while they had legal wives living and undivorced. This statute remained practically a dead letter upon the books.
In 1881-2 the subject was revived, and on January 16 of the latter year what is known as the Edmunds law was passed. This was followed later by the Edmunds-Tucker act. The two statutes combined provided for the punish-ment of those who committed the offence of polygamy by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or imprison-ment for not more than five years, or both such fine and imprisonment. The offence of unlawful cohabitation was included in this measure. This was not aimed at the act of plural marriage, but the living of husbands with their plural wives. Infractions were made punishable by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars and costs, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment. Under these measures polygamists were disfranchised, the Church was disincorporated, and its property, with certain exemptions, was escheated to the United States.
The crusade opened with the arrest of Rudger Clawson, in April, 1884, and was conducted with extreme rigor for nearly six years. In almost every case the full penalty of the law was inflicted, the exceptions being where the accused promised to obey the law "as construed by the courts."
To most people the making of such a promise would seem a very simple matter, easy to be complied with. It was, however, an exceedingly difficult and apparently im-possible condition for most of the accused to engage to conform to, for several reasons. They conscientiously thought that some of the constructions of the courts were not only strained, but extra-judicial, which conviction was subsequently verified by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. They likewise took the ground that they could not consistently enter into such a contract in opposition to an institution they deemed divine, until the Lord should justify them in so doing and the Supreme Court rendered a final decision as to the constitutionality of the laws under which they were prosecuted. Another formidable obstacle that stood in the way of making the promise of obedience was that it practically involved the casting aside of wives, with whom, in the minds of the husbands, a sacred contract, which could not be honorably disregarded, had been entered upon. The required pledge likewise meant the casting of a blight upon children born under that contract. Numbers of those men who preferred fine and imprisonment, involv-ing association with some of the vilest criminals on the earth, would also have suffered themselves to be shot to death rather than have secured freedom at such a price.
While the judiciary pursued their purpose (the sup-pression of polygamy) with unrelenting determination, they inadvertently paid a tribute to the integrity of the genuine Mormon character by offering comparative and, in numbers of cases, entire immunity from punishment on the basis of a personal promise. Had the accused been criminals in the ordinary sense, they would have promised anything in order to escape the lash of the law. If the judiciary had not believed that such a personal obligation as the one asked for would have been sacredly kept, they would not have made the tempting offer.
For several years a reign of terror prevailed—families were temporarily disrupted; men who stood well in the community were herded into the penitentiary by scores, the aggregate being between eight hundred and nine hundred. Among the extraordinary rulings of the judi-ciary was the segregation of the offence of unlawful co-habitation. In this way it was made possible, by a minute divisional process theretofore unknown to civilized ju-risprudence, to imprison a person accused of unlawful cohabitation for a term that might cover the period of his natural life, and place him under a fine that a millionaire would be unable to reach. A number of men accused of this offence were subjected to this species of treatment. In their cases the penalty was applied in each of several counts for the same offence. Many were driven into exile, numbers of women and children became broken down in health from nervous prostration, while others died from the same cause.
After repeated efforts to get the whole question before the court of last resort and obtain a decision that would cover the whole ground from that august body, the end of legal controversy was in that way finally reached. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the laws in question were constitutional, and the situation as-sumed a new aspect.
The late President Wilford Woodruff, at that time the head of the Mormon Church, issued a manifesto to the ef-fect that in the future no plural marriages should be per-formed. The law of the Church provides that the presi-dent of the Church is the only individual who has power to authorize any other person than himself to perform any such marriage, and any person that he might delegate has no right to authorize another to act in that capacity; consequently the key to the situation was in his hands. At the general conference of the Church, held on October 4, 1890, the manifesto was placed before the general as-sembly, at which the whole communion was represented. It was there and then ratified by unanimous vote, and thus became a law binding upon every member of the Church throughout the world.
That obligation has been scrupulously kept. President Woodruff had the love and confidence of his people, and the respect of the whole community, without regard to re-ligious or other differences of opinion. While a man of wide experience, he was probably as incapable of deceit as any man that ever lived. At his death, at the age of nearly ninety-two years, all classes of the people testified their respect to his memory. No one acquainted with him could believe that he would act otherwise than in good faith, especially in a matter of such magnitude and importance as the one under consideration.
After the manifesto came the initial step in the mag-nanimous policy of the general government—the issuance of the amnesty proclamation by President Cleveland, fol-lowed by another of the same character by President Har-rison. Those executive acts of clemency wiped out all past offences on condition of a future compliance with the law.
Why, then, the present agitation on the subject? In at-tempting to answer this interrogatory it is proper to state that the source of the disturbance is local, with head-quarters at Salt Lake City. Its active agents are clergy-men and politicians. When any body of men enter upon such an undertaking it is natural for the onlooker to cast about for a motive. In this connection it is proper to say that the Mormon Church is one of the most compact or-ganizations in existence. In this respect it is a marvel to all intelligent people who have studied it. Its members are honest, clear-headed, courageous, and industrious. The evidences of these traits are so conspicuous that a wayfar-ing man may run and read. Their missionaries, mostly young men able to endure the hardships incident to trav-elling over various parts of the world under adverse cir-cumstances, preach without salary. Many of them attend to this labor without purse or script. About 1800 of them are thus engaged in various nations at the present time. They meet with phenomenal success.
This method of conducting evangelical work involves constant self-sacrifice, and is a standing reproach to men of other denominations, who have good salaries and an abundance of the comforts of life while attending to their clerical duties.
Ministers of the denominations meet with meagre suc-cess among the Mormons, of whom it has been truly said, "Once a Mormon, always a Mormon." The latter claim that they have all that is good in any other religion, and a great deal more besides. Hence a number of clergymen are anxious to see the Mormon Church broken up; for this cause they are hail-fellow-well-met with designing poli-ticians who desire to have a certain class of Mormons dis-franchised.
It is only just to say, however, that there are numbers of ministers who refrain from participation in this ques-tionable method of "saving souls," while others merely fall in with it half-heartedly, to protect themselves from being ostracized by their less scrupulous brethren.
The political wing of the agitation is worked by a com-bination which aims at the control of some of the leading municipal corporations of the State. This object is per-fectly clear to all intelligent people who live in this part of the country. The clerical agitators, backed by the po-litical wing of the conspiracy, have sent out emissaries to arouse an anti-Mormon sentiment. Laying aside the book containing what they claim to have accepted as divine teaching, they go from city to city verifying the words of the poet Burns:
Ev'n ministers, they hae been kenn'd
In holy rapture,
A rousing whid, at times to vend,
And nail 't wi' Scripture.
They assert that plural marriages have been as numer-ous as before the issuance and communal ratification of the manifesto, notwithstanding that President Lorenzo Snow, successor to the late President Woodruff, recently published, at the request of a leading Eastern journal, a direct statement on this subject. The following is an ex-cerpt:
In answer to your inquiries, I declare most solemnly and emphatical-ly that the statements which are being published to the effect that the Mormon Church is encouraging and teaching polygamy are utterly un-true. Ever since the issuance of the manifesto on this subject by President Wilford Woodruff, my predecessor in office, polygamous or plural marriages have entirely ceased in Utah. Since my accession to the presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I have repeatedly asserted my intention to stand by that manifesto, and my determination not to permit any marriage to take place under the sanction of the Church which is contrary to the law of the State, and I now reaffirm that statement. Holding the keys of this authority in the Church over which I am called to preside, no such ceremony can be performed and recognized without my consent. I wish this to be clearly understood. I make this declaration unequivocally and with-out any mental reservation. Polygamous marriages in the Mormon Church have entirely ceased. The implied understanding with the nation when Utah entered the Union as a State has been sacredly ob-served. There is no intention or disposition on the part of the Church to violate or depart from it in the future.
President Snow is in his eighty-sixth year, enjoys ex-cellent health, and is possessed of a clear and vigorous mind. He is a cultured gentleman in the true sense of the term, and when his word is given on any subject there is no question as to its fulfilment.
Of late there have been two prosecutions, incited by the anti-Mormon agitators, for unlawful cohabitation. One was that of Angus M. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake Stake, and the other that of Heber J. Grant, one of the apostles of the Church. They are not cases of polygamy; these gentlemen were charged with living with the wives married by them before the issuance of the manifesto. Neither of them makes any denial of the charge. Yet these cases have been blazoned abroad as instances of bad faith. The manifesto did not require that men should dishonor their wives and children by casting them adrift. No such inhuman crime ought to be committed. Such as would do it could only be regarded as unworthy the name of man. If the great-hearted American public were cor-rectly informed on this subject, and it were asked whether an act so monstrous should be required, there would be sounded a negative that would only be comparable to a peal of national thunder.
Our answer to the religio-political assertion that polyg-amous marriages are numerous or occur at all exists in the fact that, in searching for cases to prosecute, the pur-suers of the Mormons were compelled to have recourse to such cases as antedated the manifesto.
Much fuss and fury has been raised over the election of B. H. Roberts to Congress, because of his being a polyga-mist. It has been unblushingly asserted that he was a can-didate of the Church for that position. The fact is that the Church is not in politics, but the pious clerical gentle-men who are raising this disturbance are steeped in it. They are seeking to have a class of the Mormon peo-ple placed under political disability. The Church had no candidate. Mr. Roberts was nominated by a Democratic convention composed of Mormons and non-Mormons. The figures from the election returns are before me. They ex-hibit the fact that Mr. Roberts owed his election to the non-Mormon portion of the community. They show that he received by far his largest majorities in those towns and counties which were the most heavily populated by non-Mormons, Park City being the only exception. In some localities where the population is almost exclusive-ly Mormon, Eldredge carried the day. This was notably the case in the county of Sanpete.
The question raised in this connection by the agitators is simply this, and nothing more. Since the issuance of the manifesto an estoppel has been placed upon plural mar-riages. Mr. Roberts has been duly elected to represent Utah in the House of Representatives. In order for him to take his seat, shall Congress, by an adverse decision, re-quire him to cast adrift the wives he married before the manifesto, and thus degrade his family? No matter how the subject may be twisted, this is the essence of the situa-tion. If such an alternative were offered the gentleman, there could be no doubt about his choice being such as to uphold his own honor and that of his family.
The present persecutive crusade is no exception to the axiomatic rule from a moral stand-point, "The persecuted may possibly be in the wrong, but the persecutors are never right." Since the establishment of the law of the Church to abolish plural marriages there has been a period of peace on the Mormon question. Assaults of murder-ous mobs upon the elders and members of the Church in the Southern States had become incidents of the past. Since the opening of the existing religio-political cam-paign, conducted by the use of misrepresentation as am-munition, these onslaughts upon innocent people have been renewed. It is only a short time since that an arm-ed mob with masked faces invaded the home of a worthy family in search of two elders whom they evidently in-tended to murder. The mistress of the house recognized one of the mobbers, called him by name, and upbraided him. He immediately said, "Shoot that woman." The command was obeyed, and the shot tore away a part of one side of the face of the innocent victim. Still more recently, in Tennessee, a similar mob of about one hundred violently broke up a religious meeting. As two of the elders were retiring from the scene of the dis-turbance they were fired upon from an ambush. The bullet missed its intended mark, and struck and severely wounded a little girl. The man who did the deed was informed by one of his neighbors that he had killed the child, whereupon he committed suicide.
Such barbarous work is a result of the agitation which has its headquarters in Utah. The initial disturbers make a misuse of brain, tongue, and pen in inciting the popula-tion to antipathy against the Mormons. The more brutal class of their imitators resort to masked faces and mur-derous weapons. The inciters have masks of another character—sham sanctity made from flimsy material. That the moral responsibility for the murderous onslaughts ad-here to them is so clear that the facts need not be stated.
It is urged by the promoters of this unchristianlike pursuit of a worthy community, through their agents, that their object is simply to extirpate polygamy. This sub-terfuge can be safely denied. On the clerical side the ob-ject is religious ascendency, sought to be attained by en-listing the government to aid them in the scheme. On the political side it is local political supremacy. With both wings the procurement of an amendment to the na-tional Constitution, for purposes of disfranchisement, is the weapon they desire the American people to forge for their use in the attainment of their objects. They seek to throw dust, in the eyes of the populace abroad by assert-ing that the existence of polygamous families of long standing, the overwhelming bulk of them antedating the passage of either of the laws under which they were pros-ecuted, tends to perpetuate the institution of plural mar-riage.
This is self-evidently untrue. No other process than the multiplication of plural marriages can possibly perpet-uate the system. The permanent stoppage of such mar-riages is just as sure to wipe out the institution as it is true that if man were to cease multiplying his species he would inevitably become extinct. It is just as certain, also, that the two per cent, of adults of the Mormon com-munity who are in the polygamous relation will gradually disappear from the mortal stage. Then what would the anti-Mormon Christian philanthropists do for another great moral question, and for unfortunate victims? What, then, would those poor patriots do, who are so fond of freedom that the word is ever on their lips, if they could not expend their energies in hunting for an opportunity to squat upon the rights of their neighbors?
In an hour of national peril Utah responded with alac-rity to the call for her sons to defend the interests of the republic. Some of those who stepped forward were not called to confront the enemy in battle, but they were ready and willing at any moment. Those who did have made as brilliant a record as any soldiers who took the field. The Utah batteries were, so to speak, the idols of the other troops who fought side by side with them in the Philippines. For daring, resolution, intrepidity, and effec-tive work they had no superiors. They were among those who were recently announced, at Pittsburg by Pres-ident McKinley, as having been placed upon the roll of honor. When the batteries were thus named the brave fellows of the Tenth Pennsylvania went fairly wild with enthusiasm. They and the batteries had fought together under the flag which is sacred to every true American. As often as they did the enemy was vanquished.
The batteries were composed of a splendid array of young stalwarts, of which Utah has a plentiful supply. The great majority of them were Mormons, and numbers of them the sons of polygamous parents. Surely the Amer-ican people will not cast a shadow upon men to whom the Chief Executive of the nation says the country owes a debt of gratitude. The real definition of the matter is not that the Mor-mons have acted in bad faith with the nation, but that a combination of religio-political schemers is playing upon the credulity of the people in the hope of inducing the nation to break faith with the Mormons. There is no Mormon question. There is simply an unwarrantable attempt to resurrect an old issue that died and was buried in 1890.
