The Story of the Mormons:

W >> William Alexander Linn >> The Story of the Mormons:

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59

* Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, p. 55.

Grant, on the same day, in connection with his presentation of
the doctrine of blood atonement, declared that there was
"scarcely a mother in Israel" who would not, if they could,
"break asunder the cable of the Church in Christ; and they talk
it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors,
and say that they have not seen a week's happiness since they
became acquainted with that law, or since their husbands took a
second wife."* The coarse and plain-spoken H. C. Kimball, in a
discourse in the Tabernacle, November 9, 1856, thus defined the
duty of polygamous wives, "It is the duty of a woman to be
obedient to her husband, and, unless she is, I would not give a
damn for all her queenly right or authority, nor for her either,
if she will quarrel and lie about the work of God and the
principles of plurality."**

* Ibid, P. 52.

** Deseret News, Vol. VI, p. 291.

Gentile observers were amazed, in the earlier days of Utah, to
see to what lengths the fanatical teachings of the church
officers would be accepted by women. Thus Mrs. Ferris found that
the explanation of the willingness of many young women in Utah
to be married to venerable church officers, who already had
harems, was their belief that they could only be "saved" if
married or sealed to a faithful Saint, and that an older man was
less likely to apostatize, and so carry his wives to perdition
with him, than a young one; therefore "it became an object with
these silly fools to get into the harems of the priests and
elders."

If this advantage of the church officers in the selection of new
wives did not avail, other means were employed,*as in the
notorious San Pete case. The officers remaining at home did not
hesitate to insist on a fair division of the spoils (that is,
the marriageable immigrants), as is shown by the following
remarks of Heber C. Kimball to some missionaries about starting
out: "Let truth and righteousness be your motto, and don't go
into the world for anything but to preach the Gospel, build up
the Kingdom of God, and gather the sheep into the fold. You are
sent out as shepherds to gather the sheep together; and remember
that they are not your sheep; they belong to Him that sends you.
Then don't make a choice of any of those sheep; don't make
selections before they are brought home and put into the fold.
You understand that. Amen." Mr. Ferris thus described the use of
his priestly power made by Wilford Woodruff, who, as head of the
church in later years, gave out the advice about abandoning
polygamy: "Woodruff has a regular system of changing his harem.
He takes in one or more young girls, and so manages, after he
tires of them, that they are glad to ask for a divorce, after
which he beats the bush for recruits. He took a fresh one, about
fourteen years old, in March, 1853, and will probably get rid of
her in the course of the ensuing summer." **

* Conan Doyle's story, "A Study in scarlet," is founded on the
use of this power.

** "Utah and the Mormons," p. 255.

Mrs. Waite thus relates a conversation she had with a Mormon wife
about her husband going into polygamy:--"'Oh, it is hard,' she
said, 'very hard; but no matter, we must bear it. It is a
correct principle, and there is no salvation without it. We had
one [wife] but it was so hard, both for my husband and myself,
that we could not endure it, and she left us at the end of seven
months. She had been with us as a servant several months, and
was a good girl; but as soon as she was made a wife she became
insolent, and told me she had as good a right to the house and
things as I had, and you know that didn't suit me well. But,'
continued she, 'I wish we had kept her, and I had borne
everything, for we have GOT TO HAVE ONE, and don't you think it
would be pleasanter to have one you had known than a stranger?'"*

* "The Mormon Prophet," p. 260. Many accounts of the feeling
of first wives regarding polygamy may be found in this book and
in Mrs. Stenhouse's "Tell it All."

The voice which the first wife had in the matter was defined in
the Seer (Vol. I, p. 41). If she objected, she could state her
objection to President Young, who, if he found the reason
sufficient, could forbid the marriage; but if he considered that
her reason was not good, then the marriage could take place, and
"he [the husband] will be justified, and she will be condemned,
because she did not give them unto him as Sarah gave Hagar to
Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their
husband, Jacob." Young's dictatorship in the choice of wives
was equally absolute. "No man in Utah," said the Seer (Vol. I,
p. 31), "who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain
another, has any right to make any proposition of marriage to a
lady until he has consulted the President of the whole church,
and through him obtained a revelation from God as to whether it
would be pleasing in His sight."

The authority of the priesthood was always exerted to compel at
least every prominent member of the church to take more wives
than one. "For a man to be confined to one woman is a small
business," said Kimball in the Tabernacle, on April 4, 1857.
This influence coerced Stenhouse to take as his second wife a
fourteen-year-old daughter of Parley P. Pratt, although he loved
his legal wife, and she had told him that she would not live
with him if he married again, and although his intimate friend,
Superintendent Cooke, of the Overland Stage Company, to save
him, threatened to prosecute him under the law against bigamy if
he yielded.* Another illustration, given by Mrs. Waite, may be
cited. Kimball, calling on a Prussian immigrant named Taussig
one day, asked him how he was doing and how many wives he had,
and on being told that he had two, replied, "That is not enough.
You must take a couple more. I'll send them to you." The
narrative continues:--

* When Mr. and Mrs. Stenhouse left the church at the time of the
"New Movement" their daughter, who was a polygamous wife of
Brigham Young's son, decided with the church and refused even to
speak with her parents.

"On the following evening, when the brother returned home, he
found two women sitting there. His first wife said, 'Brother
Taussig' (all the women call their husbands brother), 'these are
the Sisters Pratt.' They were two widows of Parley P. Pratt. One
of the ladies, Sarah, then said, 'Brother Taussig, Brother
Kimball told us to call on you, and you know what for.' 'Yes,
ladies,' replied Brother Taussig, 'but it is a very hard task
for me to marry two' The other remarked, 'Brother Kimball told
us you were doing a very good business and could support more
women.' Sarah then took up the conversation, 'Well, Brother
Taussig, I want to get married anyhow.' The good brother
replied, 'Well, ladies, I will see what I can do and let you
know."*

* "The Mormon Prophet," p. 258.

Brother Taussig compromised the matter with the Bishop of his
ward by marrying Sarah, but she did not like her new home, and
he was allowed to divorce her on payment of $10 to Brigham
Young!

Each polygamous family was, of course, governed in accordance
with the character of its head: a kind man would treat all his
wives kindly, however decided a preference he might show for
one; and under a brute all would be unhappy. Young, in his
earlier days at Salt Lake City, used to assemble all his family
for prayers, and have a kind word for each of the women, and all
ate at a common table after his permanent residences were built.
"Brigham's wives," says Hyde, "although poorly clothed and hard
worked, are still very infatuated with their system, very devout
in their religion, very devoted to their children. They content
themselves with his kindness as they cannot obtain his love."* He
kept no servants, the wives performing all the household work,
and one of them acting as teacher to her own and the others'
children. As the excuse for marriage with the Mormons is
childbearing, the older wives were practically discarded, taking
the place of examples of piety and of spiritual advisers.

* "Mormonism," p. 164.

** How far this doctrine was not observed may be noted in the
following remarks of H. C. Kimball in the Tabernacle, on
February 1, 1857: "They [his wives] have got to live their
religion, serve their God, and do right as well as myself.
Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the
spiritual world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all
the days of my life, and lived my religion, and had favor with
God, and was kind to them, do you think I will be destitute
there? No. The Lord says there are more there than there are
here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a
great deal faster than they do here, because there is no
obstruction. They do not call upon the doctors to kill their
offspring. In this world very many of the doctors are studying to
diminish the human race. In the spiritual world . . . we will go
to Brother Joseph . . . and he will say to us, 'Come along, my
boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your
wives?' 'They are back yonder; they would not follow us.' 'Never
mind,' says Joseph, 'here are thousands; have all you
want.'"--Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, p. 209.

A summing up of the many-sided evils of polygamy was thus
presented by President Cleveland in his first annual message:--
"The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation
rests upon our homes, established by the law of God, guarded by
parental care, regulated by parental authority, and sanctified
by parental love. These are not the homes of polygamy.

"The mothers of our land, who rule the nation as they mould the
characters and guide the actions of their sons, live according
to God's holy ordinances, and each, secure and happy in the
exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm
light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all
within her pure and wholesome family circle. These are not the
cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.

"The fathers of our families are the best citizens of the
Republic. Wife and children are the sources of patriotism, and
conjugal and parental affection beget devotion to the country.
The man who, undefiled with plural marriage, is surrounded in
his single home with his wife and children, has a status in the
country which inspires him with respect for its laws and courage
for its defence. These are not the fathers of polygamous
families."

CHAPTER XXIV. The Fight Against Polygamy--Statehood

The first measure "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy
in the Territories of the United States" was introduced in the
House of Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill No. 7)
at the first session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860.
It contained clauses annulling some of the acts of the
territorial legislature of Utah, including the one incorporating
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This bill was
reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14, the committee
declaring that "no argument was deemed necessary to prove that
an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by the
universal concurrence of the Christian and civilized world," and
characterizing the church incorporation act as granting "such
monstrous powers and arrogant assumptions as are at war with the
genius of our government." The bill passed the House on April 5,
by a vote of 149 to 60, was favorably reported to the Senate by
Mr. Bayard from the Judiciary Committee on June 13, but did not
pass that House.

Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in the next
Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was passed by the House on
April 28. Mr. Bayard, from the judiciary Committee, reported it
back to the Senate on June 3 with amendments. He explained that
the House Bill punished not only polygamous marriages, but
cohabitation without marriage. The committee recommended limiting
the punishment to bigamy--a fine not to exceed $500 and
imprisonment for not more than five years. Another amendment
limited the amount of real estate which a church corporation
could hold in the territories to $50,000. The bill passed the
Senate with the negative votes of only the two California
senators, and the House accepted the amendments. Lincoln signed
it.

Nothing practical was accomplished by this legislation, In 1867
George A. Smith and John Taylor, the presiding officers of the
Utah legislature, petitioned Congress to repeal this act,
setting forth as one reason that "the judiciary of this
territory has not, up to the present time, tried any case under
said law, though repeatedly urged to do so by those who have
been anxious to test its constitutionality." The House Judiciary
Committee reported that this was a practical request for the
sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been
able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced.
The humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at
present practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and
that the gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in
the opinion of the committee, if it be through the fault or
neglect of the judiciary of that territory that the laws are not
enforced, the judges should be removed without delay; and that,
if the failure to execute the law arises from other causes, it
becomes the duty of the President of the United States to see
that the law is faithfully executed."*

* House Report No. 27, 2nd Session, 39th Congress.

In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio obtained unanimous
consent to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation
concerning such marriages as were performed and sanctioned by
the Mormon church, but it did not pass. Senator Cragin of New
Hampshire soon introduced a similar bill, but it, too failed to
become a law.

In 1869, in the first Congress that met under President Grant,
Mr. Cullom of Illinois introduced in the House the bill aimed at
polygamy that was designated by his name. This bill was the
practical starting-point of the anti-polygamous legislation
subsequently enacted, as over it was aroused the feeling--in its
behalf in the East and against it in Utah--that resulted in
practical legislation.

Delegate Hooper made the leading speech against it, summing up
his objections as follows:--

"(1) That under our constitution we are entitled to be protected
in the full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.

"(2) That our views of the marriage relation are an essential
portion of our religious faith.

"(3) That, in conceding the cognizance of the marriage relation
as within the province of church regulations, we are practically
in accord with all other Christian denominations.

"(4) That in our view of the marriage relation as a part of our
religious belief we are entitled to immunity from persecution
under the constitution, if such views are sincerely held; that,
if such views are erroneous, their eradication must be by
argument and not by force."

The bill, greatly amended, passed the House on March 23, 1870, by
a vote of 94 to 32. The news of this action caused perhaps the
greatest excitement ever known in Utah. There was no intention
on the part of the Mormons to make any compromise on the
question, and they set out to defeat the bill outright in the
Senate. Meetings of Mormon women were gotten up in all parts of
the territory, in which they asserted their devotion to the
doctrine. The "Reformers," including Stenhouse, Harrison,
Tullidge, and others, and merchants like Walker Brothers,
Colonel Kahn, and T. Marshall, joined in a call for a
mass-meeting at which all expressed disapproval of some of its
provisions, like the one requiring men already having polygamous
wives to break up their families. Mr. Godbe went to Washington
while the bill was before the House, and worked hard for its
modification. The bill did not pass the Senate, a leading
argument against it being the assumed impossibility of
convicting polygamists under it with any juries drawn in Utah.

The arrest of Brigham Young and others under the act to punish
adulterers, and the proceedings against them before Judge McKean
in 1871, have been noted. At the same term of the court Thomas
Hawkins, an English immigrant, was convicted of the same charge
on the evidence of his wife, and sentenced to imprisonment for
three years and to pay a fine of $500. In passing sentence, Judge
McKean told the prisoner that, if he let him off with a fine,
the fine would be paid out of other funds than his own; that he
would thus go free, and that "those men who mislead the people
would make you and thousands of others believe that God had sent
the money to pay the fine; that, by a miracle, you had been
rescued from the authorities of the United States."

After the passage of the Poland law, in 1874, George Reynolds,
Brigham Young's private secretary, was convicted of bigamy under
the law of 1862, but was set free by the Supreme Court of the
territory on the ground of illegality in the drawing of the
grand jury. In the following year he was again convicted, and was
sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
$500. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court,
which rendered its decision in October, 1878, unanimously
sustaining the conviction, except that Justice Field objected to
the admission of one witness's testimony.

In its decision the court stated the question raised to be
"whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification for
an overt act made criminal by the law of the land." Next came a
discussion of views of religious freedom, as bearing on the
meaning of "religion" in the federal constitution, leading up to
the conclusion that "Congress was deprived of all legislative
power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions
which were in violation of social duties, or subversive of good
order." The court then traced the view of polygamy in England
and the United States from the time when it was made a capital
offence in England (as it was in Virginia in 1788), declaring
that, "in the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to
believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom
was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most
important feature of social life." The opinion continued as
follows:--"In our opinion, the statute immediately under
consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is
constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all
those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the
United States has exclusive control. This being so, the only
question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a
part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the
statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part
of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished,
while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be
introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for
the government of actions, and, while they cannot interfere with
mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part
of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the
civil government under which he lived could not interfere to
prevent a sacrifice? Or, if a wife religiously believed it was
her duty to burn herself on the funeral pile of her dead
husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to
prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the
exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that
plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his
practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To
permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious
belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit
every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could
exist only in name under such circumstances.

"A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every
man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate
consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he
had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He
also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When,
therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have
intended to break the law, and the breaking of the law is the
crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly
done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.*

* United States Reports, Otto, Vol. III, p. 162.

P. T. Van Zile of Michigan, who became district attorney of the
territory in 1878, tried John Miles, a polygamist, for bigamy,
in 1879, and he was convicted, the prosecutor taking advantage
of the fact that the territorial legislature had practically
adopted the California code, which allowed challenges of jurors
for actual bias. The principal incident of this trial was the
summoning of "General" Wells, then a counsellor of the church,
as a witness, and his refusal to describe the dress worn during
the ceremonies in the Endowment House, and the ceremonies
themselves. He gave as his excuse, "because I am under moral and
sacred obligations to not answer, and it is interwoven in my
character never to betray a friend, a brother, my country, my
God, or my religion." He was sentenced to pay a fine, of $100,
and to two days' imprisonment. On his release, the City Council
met him at the prison door and escorted him home, accompanied by
bands of music and a procession made up of the benevolent, fire,
and other organizations, and delegations from every ward.

Governor Emery, in his message to the territorial legislature of
1878, spoke as plainly about polygamy as any of his
predecessors, saying that it was a grave crime, even if the law
against it was a dead letter, and characterizing it as an evil
endangering the peace of society.

There was a lull in the agitation against polygamy in Congress
for some years after the contest over the Cullom Bill. In 1878 a
mass-meeting of women of Salt Lake City opposed to polygamy was
held there, and an address "to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes and the
women of the United States," and a petition to Congress, were
adopted, and a committee was appointed to distribute the petition
throughout the country for signatures. The address set forth
that there had been more polygamous marriages in the last year
than ever before in the history of the Mormon church; that
Endowment Houses, under the name of temples, and costing
millions, were being erected in different parts of the territory,
in which the members were "sealed and bound by oaths so strong
that even apostates will not reveal them"; that the Mormons had
the balance of power in two territories, and were plotting to
extend it; and asking Congress "to arrest the further progress
of this evil."

President Hayes, in his annual message in December, 1879, spoke
of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, and
said that there was no reason for longer delay in the
enforcement of the law, urging "more comprehensive and searching
methods" of punishing and preventing polygamy if they were
necessary. He returned to the subject in his message in 1880,
saying: "Polygamy can only be suppressed by taking away the
political power of the sect which encourages and sustains it . .
. . I recommend that Congress provide for the government of Utah
by a Governor and judges, or Commissioners, appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, (or) that the right to
vote, hold office, or sit on juries in the Territory of Utah be
confined to those who neither practise nor uphold polygamy."

President Garfield took up the subject in his inaugural address
on March 4, 1881. "The Mormon church," he said, "not only
offends the moral sense of mankind by sanctioning polygamy, but
prevents the administration of justice through ordinary
instrumentalities of law." He expressed the opinion that Congress
should prohibit polygamy, and not allow "any ecclesiastical
organization to usurp in the smallest degree the functions and
power, of the national government." President Arthur, in his
message in December, 1881, referred to the difficulty of
securing convictions of persons accused of polygamy--"this
odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of
Christendom"--and recommended legislation.

In the spirit of these recommendations, Senator Edmunds
introduced in the Senate, on December 12, 1881, a comprehensive
measure amending the antipolygamy law of 1862, which, amended
during the course of the debate, was passed in the Senate on
Feruary 12, 1882, without a roll-call,*and in the House on March
13, by a vote of 199 to 42, and was approved by the President on
March 22. This is what is known as the Edmunds law--the first
really serious blow struck by Congress against polygamy.