Saturday, October 30, 2010

Laws Against Polygamy - 1890 (The Manifesto) +

While the manifesto from 1890 isn't a law enacted by the Congress of the United States or any other representative legislative body, it is a current law/rule of the Church, and as such I want to include it in this historical review of laws. I will take the same approach with this post as I did with the others: History first, and then the law/rule. This post will include more commentary from contemporary writers about specific events during this time period than in the other posts I have.  The reasoning behind this is to attempt to paint a picture of the time period and trials experienced by the Mormons during this time as clearly as possible.  The history of this post will cover from 1887 to 1893 (briefly into 1896).  It took until 1893 when all previously seized personal property was finally returned (3 years after the manifesto was released).  I will again break the content down by years.

I have decided not to cover (in any detail that would give proper light to the subject) the admission of the Territory of Utah as a State.  The political battle that ensued because of this will be the subject of another post (if I post it at all), and would require much more depth than I'm willing to put into this post.  As such, this significant event, and the events that led up to it, will only be touched upon lightly.

There is a great deal of history that I am leaving out, and yet, this post is still significantly large in my opinion.  For each year I give a brief summary, as written in Church Chronology, a list of events I found important during the year, and then some description of the history of the year.  I have tried to present the facts here without regard to bias.  Both positive and negative events are listed so as to show different points of view.

As with all of my posts, I hope there are minimal to no errors.  However, I'm not naive enough to believe that this is error-free.  If I find problems, I'll correct them.  I will say this:  This post feels like I've just written a book on the subject.  I've done a fair amount of research, and left out tons of material that could rightly be justified for inclusion (background, stories, explanation, quotation from laws or court cases, etc.); I just couldn't bring myself to put it all in.

Other posts in this series:

Bibliography of sources used in this post:
cc = Church Chronology, A Record of Important Events, Compiled by Andrew Jenson, 1914.
ch = Church History in the Fulness of Times - Student Manual, published by the LDS Church, 2nd Edition, 2003.
en = Ensign to the Nations, A History of the LDS Church from 1846 to 1972, by Russell R. Rich, 14th printing, 1989.
ph = Popular History of Utah, by Orson F. Whitney, 1916.
up = Under the Prophet in Utah, by Frank J. Cannon, 1911.
ww = Wilford Woodruff, by Matthias F. Cowley, 1909.

=== 1887 ===

During this year nearly 200 of the brethren were imprisoned in the Utah Penitentiary, besides a number in Idaho, for infractions of the provisions of the anti-polygamy laws. The settlements of the Saints in Mexico and Canada were greatly strengthened by "Mormon" exiles from the United States. Under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker law the government, through its receiver took possession of the Church offices, and a wholesale confiscation of Church property was threatened. President John Taylor died in exile, and the Council of the Twelve Apostles was sustained as the Presidency of the Church. (cc, pg. 142)

327 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act this year. (en, pg. 383).

March 3, 1887 - Edmunds-Tucker Act becomes a law.
May 24, 1887 - Manti Temple "ransacked" by US Marshals looking for polygamists - no arrests were made.
July 25, 1887 - President John Taylor dies.
July 30, 1887 - Utah Supreme Court case against the Church and the PEFC according to provisions in the Edmunds-Tucker Law.
October 17, 1887 - Utah Supreme Court arguments begin in U.S. v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
November 7, 1887 - Marshal Frank H. Dyer is appointed the Receiver, and ordered to take charge of Church property.
November 8, 1887 - Receiver Dyer is given "extraordinary powers" in handling Church property. Asked to file a $250,000 bond.
November 11, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the Tithing Office in Salt Lake City, but does not interfere with the regular business.
November 15, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the Historian's Office and the Gardo House. The Tithing Office and the Historian's Office are leased back to the Church. The marshal demands the President's Office be delivered to him.
November 17, 1887 - Marshal Dyer files a $50,000 bond in the suit against the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company (PEFC).
November 18, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes possession of the PEFC property.
November 23, 1887 - Receiver Dyer takes formal possession of the President's Office, leaving two deputies in charge.
December 12, 1887 - Rudger Clawson released from prison - pardoned by President Cleveland.
December 31, 1887 - Because of the persecution and legal proceedings against the Church, all the workmen on the Temple Block in Salt Lake City, are discharged, and work on the temple is suspended.

Judicial/Political effect:
"In Idaho the crusade had been carried on vindictively.  Those who engineered the 'Anti-Mormon' movement in that Territory boasted that their juries would convict 'Mormons' whether innocent or guilty.  The U.S. Marshal, who afterwards became Delegate in Congress and subsequently a United States Senator affirmed that he had 'a jury that would convict Jesus Christ;' and no one disputed, or had any reason to dispute, the profane declaration."  (ph, pg. 454).

"By Act of Congress, all the church property in excess of $50,000 had been seized by the United States marshal, and the community faced the total loss of its common fund.  Because of some evasions that had been attempted by the Church authorities - and the suspicion of more such - the marshal had taken everything that he could in any way assume to belong to the Church."  (up, pg. 26).
"The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 included provisions aimed at destroying the Church as a political and economic entity. The law officially dissolved the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a legal corporation and required the Church to forfeit to the government all property in excess of fifty thousand dollars. Government officials set out immediately to confiscate Church holdings. For example, the buildings on Temple Square and other Church offices were placed in receivership and then rented back to the Church. In an attempt to stop the flow of European converts, the government dissolved the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, the chief agency for immigration." (ch, pg. 437).
"B.H. Roberts claims that the real cause of the anti-Mormon crusade was a fight for the political control of Utah on the part of the crusaders.  They not only wanted control of the offices in Utah that federal officers could give them, but control of the legislature and the treasury of Utah as well.  Even with the Utah Commission in political control and with the other aspects of the Edmunds Law as weapons, the Ring was not satisfied with the general progress made against the Saints, as they still could not wrest political control from the Mormons."  (en, pp. 380-381).

Effect on the Mormons living polygamy:
"As the judicial crusade against polygamy continued, a new way of life was created for many Saints.  Otherwise law-abiding men escaped to the underground and frequently moved from place to place to avoid the marshals who were hunting them.  Fleeing 'cohabs' (as they were called) went into canyons, barns, fields, and cellars to avoid their pursuers.  Federal officers countered by disguising themselves as peddlers or census takers in order to gain entry into homes.  Some marshals raided houses, invading privacy and even mistreating wives and children to catch their prey.  Ten and twenty-dollar bounties were offered for every Latter-day Saint captured, and much larger amounts were available if a General Authority was apprehended." (ch, pg. 432).

"A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile. Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends. Husbands and wives, separated by the necessities of flight, had died apart, miserably. Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health. A young plural wife whom I knew - a mere girl, of good breeding, of gentle life - seeking refuge in the mountains to save her husband from a charge of 'unlawful cohabitation,' had had her infant die in her arms on the road; and she had been compelled to bury the child, wrapped in her shawl, under a rock, in a grave that she scratched in the soil with a stick. In our day! In a civilized state!" (up, pp. 25-26).

=== 1888 ===

The year, generally speaking, was a prosperous one for the Saints in Utah and surrounding territories, although more arrests and imprisonments for conscience sake than during any previous season since the prosecutions under the Edmunds law commenced. A good harvest was gathered in nearly all the settlements of the Saints, although water was somewhat scarce in many places. The missionaries abroad were quite successful in their labors, especially on the "islands of the sea," including Samoa, where the fulness of the gospel was introduced in 1888. (cc, pg. 157).

334 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act for this year. (en, pg. 343).

January 18, 1888 - Utah Supreme Court denies an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of appointing a receiver for the Church property.
May 14, 1888 - Deputy marshals demand the tabernacle at Logan as Church property, but are refused.
July 6, 1888 - The Church farm in Salt Lake County is turned over to Receiver Dyer.
July 9, 1888 - Receiver Dyer petitions the Supreme Court of Utah to have $157,000+ worth of Church property delivered to him.
July 9, 1888 - President Cleveland nominates Elliot F. Sandford to replace Judge Zane.
July 10, 1888 - Considerable Church property is turned over to Dyer on compromise, pending appeal to the US Supreme Court.
August 28, 1888 - Judge Sandford arrives and relieves Judge Zane.
September 17, 1888 - George Q. Cannon surrenders to Marshal Dyer and is brought before Judge Sandford.
December 12, 1888 - Mormon legislators are expelled from the Idaho legislature.

Life on the Underground (Frank J. Cannon relating a story of meeting with his father, George Q. Cannon):
"About ten o'clock one night in the spring of 1888, I set out secretly, from Salt Lake City, on a nine-mile drive to Bountiful, to meet my father, who was concealed 'on the underground,' among friends; and that night drive, with its haste and its apprehension, was so of a piece with the times, that I can hardly separate it from them in my memory. We were all being carried along in an uncontrollable sweep of tragic events. In a sort of blindness, like the night, unable to see the nearest fork of the road ahead of us, we were being driven to a future that held we knew not what.

"... The whole district was picketed with deputy marshals; we did not know that we were not being followed; we had always the sense of evading patrols in an enemy's country. But this feeling was so old with us that it had become a thing of no regard.

"... With Wilcken holding the reins on a pair of fast horses at full speed, we whirled past an old adobe wall (which the Mormons had built to defend their city from the Indians) and came out into the purple night of Utah, with its frosty starlight and its black hills ... we drove, that night, up the Salt Lake valley, across a corner of the desert, to the little town of Bountiful; and as soon as we arrived among the houses of the settlement, a man stepped out into the road, from the shadows, and stopped us. Wilcken spoke to him. He recognized us, and let us pass. As we turned into the farm where my father was concealed, I saw men lurking here and there, on guard, about the grounds." (up, pp. 23-25, 27).

Mormon Community Definition:
"Their community was founded on the three principles of co-operation, contribution, and arbitration. By co-operation of effort they had realized that dream of the Socialists, 'equality of opportunity' - not equality of individual capacity, which the accidents of nature prevent, but an equal opportunity for each individual to develop himself to the last reach of his power. By contribution - by requiring each man to give one-tenth of his income to a common fund - they had attained the desired end of modern civilization, the abolition of poverty, and had adjusted the straps of the community burden to the strength of the individual to bear it. By arbitration, they had effected the settlement of every dispute of every kind without litigation; for their High Councils decided all sorts of personal or neighborhood disputes without expense of money to the disputants. The 'storehouse of the Lord' had been kept open to fill every need of the poor among 'God's people,' and opportunities for self-help had been created out of the common fund, so that neither unwilling idleness nor privation might mar the growth of the community or the progress of the individual.

"But Joseph Smith had gone further. ... [He assumed] that a woman's chief right was that of wifehood and maternity, [and so] instituted the practice of plural marriage, as a 'Prophet of God,' on the authority of a direct revelation from the Almighty. It was upon this rock that the whole enterprise, the whole experiment in religious communism, now threatened to split. Not that polygamy was so large an incident in the life of the community - for only a small proportion of the Mormons were living in plural marriage. And not that this practice was the cardinal sin of Mormonism - for among intelligent men, then as now, the great objection to the Church was its assumption of a divine authority to hold the 'temporal power,' to dictate in politics, to command action and to acquit of responsibility. But polygamy was the offense against civilization which the opponents of Mormonism could always cite in order to direct against the Church the concentrated antagonism of the governments of the Western world." (up, pp. 33-34).

How Chief Justice Charles S. Zane was replaced:

Frank J. Cannon was asked by his father (George Q.) to use his influence in Washington to seek relief for the Saints in Utah.  George Q:  "We feel that if relief does not soon appear, our community will be scattered and the great work crushed."  Late one night, he secretly meets with Joseph F. Smith at the Lion House in Salt Lake City.  This first quote is Frank Cannon's belief of what drives some of the animosity between Joseph F. Smith and the government of the United States.
"No Mormon in those years, I think, had more hate than [Joseph F.] Smith for the United States government; and surely none had better reasons to give himself for hate.  He had the bitter recollection of the assassination of his father and his uncle in the jail of Carthage, Illinois; he could remember the journey that he had made with his widowed mother across the Mississippi, across Iowa, across the Missouri, and across the unknown and desert West, in ox teams, half starved, unarmed, persecuted by civilization and at the mercy of savages; he could remember all the toils and hardships of pioneer days 'in the valley;' he had seen the army of '58 arrive to complete, as he believed, the final destruction of our people; he had suffered from all the proscriptive legislation of 'the raid,' been out-lawed, been in exile, been in hiding, hunted like a thief." (up, pp. 38-39).
During the conversation with President Smith, he [Frank] is asked to do whatever he can to alleviate the suffering in Utah.  Here is what Joseph F. Smith is reported to have said:
"These scoundrels here must be removed [political appointees in Utah, and those seeking to arrest men charged with polygamy] - if there's any way to do it.  They're trying to repeat the persecutions of Missouri and Illinois.  They want to despoil us of our heritage - of our families.  I'm sick of being hunted like a wild beast.  I've done no harm to them or theirs.  Why can't they leave us alone to live our religion and obey the commandments of God and build up Zion? ... I thought Cleveland would stop this damnable raid and make them leave us in peace - but he's as bad as the rest.  Can't they see that these carpet baggers are only trying to rob us?  Make them see that.  The hounds!  Sometimes it seems to me that the Lord is letting these iniquities go on so that the nation may perish in its sins all the sooner!"  (up, pp. 40-41).
Frank left and traveled east, not knowing exactly how to accomplish the task he had been given.  In Washington he "intended to argue - as the first wise concession needed of the Federal authorities - that Chief Justice Zane should no longer be retained on the bench in Utah, but should be succeeded by a man more gentle. He was the great figure among our prosecutors; the others were District Attorney Dickson and the two assistants, Mr. Varian and Mr. Hiles." (up, pg. 50).

He traveled to New York City and met with the mayor there, Mr. Abraham S. Hewitt, a friend of his father's.  After hearing of the troubles in Utah, the mayor recommended Judge Elliott F. Sanford as a replacement for Judge Charles S. Zane.  Mr. Cannon met Mr. Sandford and his wife in New York and convinced him (them) to accept a Presidential nomination to the position of Chief Justice in Utah.  He is given a letter to present to Mr. William C. Whitney (Secretary of the Navy), who subsequently helped him obtain an interview with President Grover Cleveland.
"I had to tell him [President Cleveland] that the situation had not improved, and his face flushed with an anger that he made no attempt to conceal.  He declared that the fault must lie in our obstinate determination to hold ourselves superior to the law.  He could not sympathize with our sufferings, he said, since they were self-inflicted.  He admitted that he had once been opposed to the Edmunds-Tucker bill, but felt now that it was justified by the immovability of the Mormons.  All palliatives had failed.  The patience of Congress had been exhausted.  There was no recourse, except to make statutes cutting enough to destroy the illegal practices and unlawful leadership in the Mormon community."  (up, pg. 74).
Just as the President was dismissing him, he told him that 20 years of politicians doing the same thing over and over again has failed.  He, Frank, has a solution that could possibly work. 
"Mr. President," I replied, "if you were travelling in the West, and came to an unbridged stream with your wagon train, and saw tracks leading down into the water where you thought there was a ford, you would naturally expect to cross there, assuming that others had done so before you.  But suppose that some man on the bank should say to you:  'I've watched wagon trains go in here for more than twenty years, and I've never yet seen one come out on the other side.  Look over at that opposite bank.  You see there are no wagon tracks there.  Now, down the river a piece, is a place where I think there's a ford.  I've never got anybody to try it yet, but certainly it's as good a chance as this one!'  Mr. President, what would you do?  Would you attempt a crossing where there had been twenty years of failure, or would you try the other place - on the chance that it might take you over?"  (up, pp. 76-77).
In other words, all of the political efforts to solve the Mormon problem have been the same for the last 20 years, and they have all failed.  Something new must be tried.  When Mr. Cannon met the Presdient a few days later, "He was interested, receptive, almost genial.  He gave me an oppotunity to cover the whole ground of my case, and I went over it step by step."
"He looked squarely at me, with a most determined front, when I told him that the Mormons would be ground to powder before they would yield.  'They can't yield,' I warned him.  'They're like the passengers on a train going with a mad speed down a dangerous grade.  For any of them to attempt to jump is simple destruction.  They can only pray to Providence to help them.  But if that train were to be brought to a stop at some station where they could alight with anything like self-respect, there would be many of them glad to get off - even though the train had not arrived at it's 'revealed' destination."  (up, pg. 79).
After many more meetings, the President decided that he wanted to help address the Mormon problem.  He was going to appoint Mr. Elliott F. Sandford as Chief Justice in Utah, relieving Judge Charles Zane.

Reaction to Judge Sandford's installation:
"He was appointed Chief Justice on the 9th day of July, 1888, and - as the Mormon people expressed it - 'the backbone of the raid was broken.' On August 26, 1888, he arrived in Salt Lake City. On September 17, my father [George Q. Cannon] came before him in court and pleaded guilty to two indictments charging him with 'unlawful cohabitation.' He was fined $450 [~$10,500 today] and sentenced to the penitentiary for one hundred and seventy-five days. His example was followed by a number of prominent Mormons, including Francis Marion Lyman. ... It is true that not many cases, relatively speaking, came to Justice Sandford; but the leader whom the authorities were most eager to subjugate under Federal power was judged and sentenced; and the effect, both on the country and on the Mormon people, was all that we had expected."  (up, pp. 80-81).
"While the crusade was by no means at an end, its extreme bitterness was gradually vanishing. During the year Judge Zane was succeeded by Judge Elliott Sandford of New York. Mr. Sanford was a man of refinement and of moral courage. He manifested no personal bias and no excessive zeal in the administration of the law." (ww, pg. 563).

=== 1889 ===

By the Saints in Utah 1889 will be remembered as the year when the question whether or not the Church to which they belonged could be robbed of its property by the government was laid before the supreme tribunal of their country; and also the question whether they could be robbed of civil and political rights as individual citizens, because of their religious belief. Abroad the missionaries met with considerable success, and a few were baptized in Asia Minor and Palestine. In New Zealand large numbers of natives embraced the gospel, and the progress in Europe is shown by the fact that, during the year, 321 were baptized in Great Britain, 572 in Scandinavia, 219 in Switzerland and Germany, and 77 in Holland. The Book of Mormon was translated into the modern Jewish and Maori languages. In Salt Lake City, Ogden, and other places in Utah the political developments toward the close of the year will always be remembered as being very significant and demonstrative. (cc, pg. 169).

346 convictions under the Edmunds-Tucker Act during this year. (en, pg. 383).

January 14, 1889 - Francis M. Lyman sentenced to the Utah Penitentiary for 85 days and fined $200.
January 19, 1889 - U.S. Supreme Court arguments heard in U.S. v. Mormon Church.
February 18, 1889 - Receiver Dyer is examined in court, and nothing is found against him (his work).
March 9, 1889 - Marshal Dyer tendered his resignation to President Cleveland.
May 24, 1889 - Judge Charles S. Zane is reappointed Chief Judge of Utah by President Harrison.
June 3, 1889 - Judge Zane replaces Judge Sandford.
June 24, 1889 - Utah Supreme Court ordered that the Church farm be leased to John R. Winder for $401/month.
July 12, 1889 - President Harrison appoints Elias H. Parsons as marshal and Charles S. Varian district attorney for Utah.
August 21, 1889 - Receiver Dyer leased 29,756 Church sheep at an average of 43 cents/head.
September 27, 1889 - Utah Commission reports to Secretary John W. Noble - they say Utah needs harsher measures.
November, 1889 - The Endowment House is taken down (erected in 1855).
November 30, 1889 - Judge Anderson, in the Third District Court, renders a decision that "Mormon" aliens can not be admitted to citizenship (in the U.S.).

Replacement of Judge Sandford by Judge Zane:
President Benjamin Harrison was elected, and as a consequence many public government officials were replaced in Utah.  "An official change that caused more comment than all the others combined was the removal of Chief Justice Sandford and the reappointment of his predecessor, Chief Justice Zane. ... Justice Sandford had written out his resignation soon after Harrison was inaugurated."  Justice Sandford requested to know why he was being replaced, and the response was the following:  "... the President has become satisfied that your administration of the office is not in harmony with the policy he deems proper to be pursued with reference to Utah affairs."

Judge Sandford made the following rejoinder:  "My earnest purpose while on the Bench, as Chief Justice of this Territory, has been to administer justice and the laws honestly and impartially to all men, under the obligations of my oath of office.  If the President of the United States has any policy which he desires a Judge of the Supreme Court to carry out in reference to Utah affairs other than the one I have pursued, you may say to him that he has done well to remove me." (ph, pg. 470).

Judge Anderson's decision regarding naturalization:
"Many bona fide residents had not been naturalized, and to pass upon applications for citizenship Associate Justice Anderson held special sessions of court at Salt Lake City.  'Mormon' applicants were questioned as to their belief in polygamy, and if they admitted such a belief they were objected to as 'men of immoral character.'  Inquiries made of other applicants concerning sexual practices outside the marriage relation, were characterized by the objectors 'superfluous and absurd.'

"Allegations respecting a ceremony which was said to require from everyone passing through the Endowment House an oath of hostility to the United States Government, were made the basis of a contention that no member of the 'Mormon' Church should be admitted to citizenship.'
"Judge Anderson, in a decision rendered on the last day of November, 1889, denied the applications of John Moore and Walter J. Edgar for citizenship, on the ground that they had been through the Endowment House and had there taken an oath of hostility to the Government.  Nine others were rejected because they were members of the 'Mormon' Church, though they had never been through the Endowment House, and were not even accused of taking any disloyal oath or obligation."  (ph, pp. 478-479).

In concluding his journal for the year 1889, Wilford Woodruff wrote: 
'This ends the year.  The word of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, has been fulfilled wherein he declared that the whole nation would turn against Zion and make war upon the Saints.  The nation has never been so full of lies against the Saints as it is today."  (ww, pg. 566).

=== 1890 ===

Salt Lake City passed from the hands of the People's Party to those of the Liberals, or anti Mormon element. Nearly all the civil rights left to the Saints were threatened by proposed anti-Mormon legislation. President Woodruff issued his manifesto, suspending plural marriage. (cc, pg. 180).

February 3, 1890 - The Supreme Court of the United States rendered an opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Idaho test oath, in the case of Samuel D. Davis.
March 4, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court made an order terminating the lease of the Gardo House and hereafter renting it to the highest bidder.
March 5, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court made an order terminating the lease of the Tithing Office grounds and was rented to the highest bidder.
March 10, 1890 - John R. Winder is the highest bidder for the Gardo House $450/month.
March 12, 1890 - John R. Winder is the highest bidder for the Tithing Office grounds $500/month.
April 11, 1890 - Cullom-Struble Bill introduced in Congress.
May 14, 1890 - George F. Edmunds introduces a bill in the Senate providing for the entire disfranchisement of the Mormons.
May 19, 1890 - United States v. Mormon Church - Supreme Court says Edmunds-Tucker act is constitutional.
June 10, 1890 - George F. Edmunds introduces a bill in the Senate providing for the disposition of the escheated Church property.
July 7, 1890 - Receiver Dyer made a report on Church property for Examiner Rosburough.
July 14, 1890 - Receiver Dyer resignes his position as Receiver of confiscated Church property.
July 16, 1890 - Utah Supreme Court appoints Henry W. Lawrence as Receiver of confiscated Church property.
July 29, 1890 - Receiver Henry W. Lawrence is ordered by the Utah Supreme Court to sell the Church sheep in his possession.
September 24, 1890 - A manifesto was issued, signed by President Woodruff, in which the Saints are advised "to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the laws of the land."
September 26, 1890 - The Manifesto is released.
October 6, 1890 - The Manifesto is sustained by the Church in Conference assembled.
October 7, 1890 - In the Third District Court, Judge Zane rules that membership in the Mormon Church should no longer be a barrier to aliens being admitted to citizenship.
October 13, 1890 - James E. Clark is sentenced by Judge Zane to pay a $100 fine for unlawful cohabitation. In consideration of the manifesto just issued, no imprisonment is imposed.
November 5, 1890 - U.S. District Attorney Varian filed two suits for the forfeiture of the Temple Block under the escheat law, in the Third District court.

Background information:
"Although arrests and imprisonments caused families to suffer, the greatest problem for the Church was its inability to acquire and hold the funds necessary to build temples, do missionary work, publish material, and provide for the welfare of the Saints.  Church leaders succeeded in getting their case before the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the confiscation of Church property under the Edmunds-Tucker Act was unconstitutional.  But in May 1890, the court upheld, in a five to four decision, the constitutionality of all the government had done under the Edmunds-Tucker Law.  Though disappointed by the decision, there was little the Saints could do to ward off the impending economic destruction of the Church."  (ch, pg. 438).

"With nearly 1,300 men and women having been sentenced, with all Latter-day Saints in Idaho having been disfranchised; with the Church having been disincorporated and her real and personal property confiscated; with all polygynists and all women in Utah having been disfranchised; with all the rights of local self-government in Utah suspended (even to the privilege of operating their schools); with pressure arising for the government to disfranchise all Mormons in territories; with prospects for the future that the personal property of every Latter-day Saint might be confiscated; with the United States Supreme Court having declared the Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862, the Idaho Test Oath, and the main parts of the Edmunds-Tucker Law as constitutional, President Woodruff felt the time had come when it could be said that the members of the Church had gone forth with all diligence to perform the commands of the Lord, and the Lord would no longer require them to practice plural marriage."  (en, pp. 385-386).

February 3, 1890 - Supreme Court case:  Davis v. Beason:  133 U.S. 333

Short answer:  The test oath used to qualify voters in Idaho is legal, and cannot be challenged.  Samuel D. Davis' prison term is legal.

Here is a piece of the oath used in Idaho:
"... and I do further swear that I am not a bigamist or polygamist; that I am not a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees or any other person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, as a duty arising or resulting from membership in such order, organization or association, or which practices bigamy, polygamy or plural or celestial marriage as a doctrinal rite of such organization; that I do not and will not, publicly or privately or in any manner whatever teach, advise, counsel or encourage any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a religious duty or otherwise."
If you are a polygamist, or belong to an organization that encourages polygamy, whether or not you actually practice it, you are disqualified from voting.  This effectively disfrachised all Mormons in Idaho.

The jurisdiction of the case was all that the Supreme Court decided on; did the Idaho court have jurisdiction in the case?  Using Reynolds v. United States as it's first case reference, the court demonstrated that polygamy was a crime that could be legislated against, and it would not intefere with a citizen's first amendment rights of freedom of religion.  With that case as the foundation, they further found that "the territorial legislature [of Idaho] was authorized to prescribe any qualifications for voters calculated to secure obedience to its laws."  In other words, the Idaho court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence Mr. Samuel Davis in connection with this test oath.

"The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed."

This case had broad reaching effects for the Mormons in Utah.  To over-simplify it a bit, it meant that a law could be passed disqualifying all Mormons from voting.  The very real possibility of a new law aimed at Mormons in Utah, and not just Idaho, was shortly seen; two months later, bills to affect this outcome were introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States - the Cullom-Struble Bill.

Cullom-Struble Bill:

Members of the Church in both Utah and Idaho watched this case closely, and were very disappointed with the outcome.  They had hoped the Supreme Court would strike down the test oath in Idaho, and allow all law abiding citizens to vote - independent of their religion.  However, with the affirmation from the United States Supreme Court that the "Idaho Test Oath" was constitutional, and the continuing troubles of persuading the Mormons in Utah to give up the practice of polygamy, Washington felt that stricter legislation was necessary to force the Utah Church to become law abiding - even to the point of removing individual rights of citizens; the right to vote.

April 10, 1890:  Illinois Senator Shelby Moore Cullom introduces a bill aimed at disfranchising all who practice polygamy in every Territory of the United States.
April 11, 1890:  Iowa Representative Isaac S. Struble introduces a bill aimed at disfranchising all who practice polygamy in every Territory of the United States.

Both of these bill are combined, and called the Cullom-Struble bill.
"It provided that no person living in plural marriage, or who taught polygamy, or was a member or contributed to the support of any organization that advised or encouraged the practice, or who assisted in the solemnization of plural marriages, should vote, serve as a juror, or hold office in Utah."  (ph, pg. 482).
"In a press interview, the Governor [Thomas] stated that the decision of the Court of Last Resort in the Idaho disfranchisement case had been accepted by leading members of Congress as the solution of the Utah problem, and he expressed the opinion that the Cullom-Struble bill would probably become a law."  (ph, pg. 483).
The Deseret News ran an editorial by Charles W. Penrose giving their position (probably to be considered the Church's position as well, although it wasn't official as it was editorial) on April 12, 1890.  A link to this editorial can be found here.  From the start of the editorial, Mr. Penrose is decidedly against this new legislation, which he calls the "[R. N.] Baskin anti-'Mormon' bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Cullom."
"It includes the extremest features of the Idaho test oath, besides going still further than that oppressive and unjust measure.

"Among the alleged features of the organization, membership in and support of which produces political disfranchisement, is that it 'teaches or advises that any such law as aforesaid is not supreme, or that any alleged revelation on the subject of such marriage is paramount to any such law."
Mr. Penrose states that Latter-Day Saints are among the most loyal of citizens in the country and believe that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired document.  He goes on to state that the Saints "will yet take part in the reorganization of this country upon the basic principles of the national organic law."

This bill "would not only apply the Idaho Test Oath to Utah but would also disfranchise all Latter-day Saints in all of the territories.  This literally meant that no member of the Church in Utah or any other territory could be a citizen.  Thus, even where the Saints were in the great majority, they would have absolutely nothing to say about their government." (en, pg. 384).

George Q. Cannon asks his son Frank to talk with his friend, Secretary of State James G. Blaine, to try and stop the passage of this bill.  Frank arranged the meeting and recorded these notes about his conversation with Secretary Blaine:
"He rose to terminate the interview.  He looked at me with a smile.  'The Lord giveth,' he said, 'and the Lord taketh away.'  Wouldn't it be possible for your people to find some way - without disobedience to the commands of God - to bring yourselves into harmony with the law and institutions of this country?  Believe me, it's not possible for any people as weak in numbers as yours, to set themselves up as superior to the majesty of a nation like this.  We may succeed, this time, in preventing your disfranchisement; but nothing permanent can be done until you 'get into line.' ... He put his arm around my shoulders, at last, and said:  'You tell your father for me - as I tell you, young man - you shall not be harmed, this time.'"  (up, pg. 90).
"The Cullom-Struble Bill was not rushed through Congress as the Edmunds Bill had been; a fact owing, it is said, to the silent though potent influence of Secretary Blaine.  The great political leader was convinced of the impolicy of the proposed legislation ... His powerful hand was interposed, however, with the understanding that something would be done in Utah to meet the situation."  (ph, pp. 485-486).
More information on the background of the bill, and Frank Cannon's involvement with stopping it can be found here.  This is actually a very good read on background for the entire Manifesto, pressures on the Church to change, and what went on behind the scenes politically.

After returning from Washington, Frank J. Cannon met with President Woodruff to tell him what happened there and the expectations of certain politicians for a change in Church doctrine.  The substance of the meeting is that he has learned from Washington that the Cullom-Struble bill will not pass; however, the Church must abandon polygamy entirely, or the next bill will pass.
WW: "Brother Frank, I have been making it a matter of prayer. I have wrestled mightily with the Lord. And I think I see some light."

FJC: "To be very plain with you, President Woodruff, our friends expect, and the country will insist, that the Church shall yield the practice of plural marriage."

WW: "I had hoped we wouldn't have to meet this trouble this way. You know what it means to our people. I had hoped that the Lord might open the minds of the people of this nation to the truth, so that they might be converted to the everlasting covenant. Our prophets have suffered like those of old, and I thought that the persecutions of Zion were enough - that they would bring some other reward that this."

"In polygamy, the men and women alike had been compelled to suffer on its account by the grim trials of the life itself and by the hatred of all civilization arrayed against it. They had grown to value their marriage system by what it had cost them. They had been driven by the contempt of the world to argue for its sanctity, to live up to their declarations, and to raise it in their esteem to what it professed to be, the celestial order that prevailed in the Heavens! I knew, as well as President Woodruff did, the wrench it would give their hearts to have to abandon, at last, what they had so long suffered for." (up, pp. 98-99).

May 19, 1890 - Supreme Court case:  Mormon Church v. United States:  136 US 1

Short answer:  Congress can dissolve the corporation of the Church, and seize specific personal and real property; therefore, the Edmunds-Tucker Act is constitutional.

The main questions of the hearing are answered here in the report on the case:
"(3) Congress had the power to repeal the act of incorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not only by virtue of its general power over the territories, but by virtue of an express reservation in the organic act of the Territory of Utah of the power to disapprove and annul the acts of its legislature."

"(4) The act of incorporation being repealed and the corporation dissolved, its property, in the absence of any other lawful owner, devolved to the United States, subject to be disposed of according to the principles applicable to property devoted to religious and charitable uses."
After the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, the Church tried to transfer a great deal of property to individual trustees in an attempt to avoid being classified as "Church property" and thus seizable by the Receiver; this was struck down:
"The attempt made, after the passage of the act on February 19, 1887, and while it was in the president's hands for his approval or rejection, to transfer the property from the trustee then holding it to other persons, and for the benefit of different associations, was so evidently intended as an evasion of the law that the court below justly regarded it as void and without force or effect."
Ruling:  "We have carefully examined the decree, and do not find anything in it that calls for a reversal. It may perhaps require modification in some matters of detail, and for that purpose only the case is reserved for further consideration."

To say the final decision was a disappointment to the Church, would be a large understatement.  This ruling meant that the United States government could seize any property of the Mormon Church it deemed necessary in order to force the Church into obedience.  It appeared the government was going to grind the Saints to powder, and there was nothing that could be done to stop it.
A listing of the main properties seized by the Receiver can be found on this post here (see item #11, part 5).

The Issuance of the Manifesto:
"But the courts had decided 'against us.' The great men of the nation were determined to show us no mercy. Legislation was impending that would put us 'in the power of the wicked.' Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother John T. Caine, and the other brethren who had been in Washington, had found that the situation of the Church was critical. Brother Franklin S. Richards had advised him that our last legal defense had fallen. 'In broken and contrite spirit' he had sought the will of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that it was necessary for the Church to relinquish the practice of that principle for which the brethren had been willing to lay down their lives." (up, pp. 104-105).

Frank Cannon was requested to meet with President Woodruff.
"I hastened to Salt Lake City, to the offices of the Presidency. President Woodruff took me into a private room and read his 'manifesto.'

"Here, shaking in the hand of age, was a sheet of paper by which the future of a half million people was to be directed; and that simple old man was to speak through it, to them, with the awful authority of the voice of God.

"He told me he had written it himself, and it certainly appeared to me to be in his hand-writing. ...  I found it disappointingly mild. It denied that the Church had been solemnizing any plural marriages of late, and advised the faithful 'to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land.' In spite of this mildness, President Woodruff asked me whether I thought the Mormons would support the revelation - whether they would accept it.

"I replied that there could be no proper anxiety on that point. The majority of the Mormon people were ready for such a message." (up, pp. 99-100).

Frank is then invited to attend a meeing in the President's offices, where the rest of the available apostles from the quorum, learned of the manifesto of President Woodruff.  There is far too much to quote to do justice to this piece of history.  I suggest a reading of the 4th chapter of Frank's book (link:  here) to better understand this.  The first reactions and final acceptance by these men was good reading.  Joseph F. Smith appeared to have a very hard time with this initially.  I know of no other publicly available source (correct me if I'm wrong please) that conveys this story of when the Manifesto was first acknowledged.  After the amount of time I've spent reading history, my opinion is that this story would appear to be a faithful account of the meeting.

The Manifesto is read in the October General Conference:

The Church had published the Manifesto to the world.  It had been given to newspapers across the country and relayed to Washington D.C. so as to satisfy those in power that the Mormons had given up polygamy as a religious practice.  The publishing of this document wasn't enough.  Washington wanted the document read and voted on in Conference in a public manner.
"The Articles of Faith were sustained as the rule of conduct for the Church, a motion to that end having been made by Elder Franklin D. Richards, of the Council of the Twelve.  The Manifesto was then read to the people in like manner, and another of the Apostles - Elder Lorenzo Snow - supplemented the reading with this motion:  'I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 25, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding .'  The vote to sustain the motion was unanimous."  (ph, pg. 487).
"In his private journal he made no particular mention of the circumstances leading up to the Manifesto, neither did he make any comment upon it further than to say: 'I have been called upon this day to act for the Church.'

"It was a solemn day to all Israel. The thought of suspending the practice of a principle for which they had already suffered so much, was indeed painful to thousands of the people. The responsibility, however, the Prophet of God placed upon the nation for rejecting a principle which had within it the power to redeem the world from the greatest of social evils and according to Isaiah, to take away the reproach of women who have been unjustly dealt with by ungodly men." (ww, pg. 570).

Affect of the Manifesto:
"The effect of the 'Mormon' President's official utterance upon those most favorable to the disfranchisement legislation was quite dispiriting.  It came as a surprise - almost as a shock to them.  They at once questioned the sincerity of the declaration, denouncing it as a sham, a trick to deceive the Nation and gain a temporary advantage. ... One of the first to recognize it as genuine, and allow it to influence his official course, was Chief Justice Zane.  He had repeatedly expressed the wish that the President of the Church would issue such a statement, and now that it had come, he was glad, and received it in good faith.  The day after its ratification by the Conference, Judge Zane, while examining in court certain applicants for citizenship, remarked:  'Hereafter I will not make the simple fact that an applicant is a member of the 'Mormon' Church a bar to his admission.'"  (ph, pg. 489).

"In any discussion of the public affairs that make the subject matter of this narrative, a line of discrimination must be drawn at the year 1890.  In that year the Church began a progressive course of submission to the civil law, and the nation received each act of surrender with forgiveness.  The previous defiances of the Mormon people ceased to give grounds for a complaint against them.  The old harshnesses of the Federal government were canceled by the new generosity of a placated nation.  And neither party to the present strife in Utah should go back, beyond the period of this composition, to dig up, from the past, its buried wrongs."  (up, pg. 112).
"Within the space of a few days a revolution was completed that had been sought by the power of our nation and of the civilized world, for a generation, with stripes and imprisonment, death, confiscation and the ostracism of the country's public contempt.  It had been obtained, I knew, chiefly by the sagacity of the First Councilor using the pressure of circumstances to enforce the persuasions of diplomacy."  (up, pg. 114).

=== 1891 ===

The People's Party in Utah was dissolved and most of its members united with the two great nation parties - Democrats and Republicans. Under the Liberal rule Salt Lake City became a regular rendezvous for foot pads, burglars, and thieves. Immorality, wickedness and lawlessness had full sway; taxation was made oppressive and unjust. (cc, pg. 190).

February 13, 1891 - The former residence of George Q. Cannon on South Temple Street, and other valuable property in Salt Lake City, were seized by the US Marshal, under the pretense that it was escheated Church property.
May 25, 1891 - US Supreme Court rendered a decision that the escheated Church property should still remain in the hands of the Receiver, and the Utah Supreme Court should take further action in the case.
June, 1891 - The People's Party (Church Party) dissolved.
July 1, 1891 - Utah Supreme Court appointed Judge Charles F. Loofbourow to take testimony in the Church suits as a Master of Chancery.
September 27, 1891 - Joseph F. Smith addresses a congregation in the tabernacle - his first public appearance in years.
October 19, 1891 - Judge Loofbourow began taking testimony in the escheated Church property cases, with a view to deciding what charitable uses the escheated Church property should be applied to. Presidents Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon testified.
October 27, 1891 - Judge Zane decided that the Whitney property of the Tithing Office block, the Cannon House on South Temple street, the Council House Corner, SLC, were exempt from confiscation, as well as the Tabernacle Square and other property at Ogden.
November 11, 1891 - After a lengthy investigation in the 3rd district court, Judge Zane rendered a decree escheating the Tithing Office, Gardo House, Historian's Office, and Church farm to the government.
December 1, 1891 - The Gardo House was vacated by the Church as escheated property.
December 19, 1891 - Petition for Amnesty signed by prominent men of the Church (leaders) and endorsed by Governor Thomas, Chief Justice Zane, and other 'gentiles.'

Background Information:

"A Sentiment for Tolerance: Cases of unlawful cohabitation continued to be prosecuted as fast as they came to the knowledge of the Government officers. But gradually a sentiment grew - and it was shared by all classes of the community - that men who had married polygamously before the date of the Manifesto, should not be interfered with for living with their plural families while caring for and supporting them. No more polygamous marriages were to be entered into, but time was to be given for plural relationships already existing to pass away by natural processes, and men involved in such relations were not to be compelled to desert their wives and children and cast them adrift. ... Consequently such prosecutions ceased." (ph, pg. 490).

"During 1891, President Woodruff's manifesto had been ratified in local Church conferences in every 'stake of Zion;' and a second General Conference had endorsed it in October of that year. President Woodruff, Councilor Joseph F. Smith and Apostle Lorenzo Snow went before the Federal Master in Chancery - in a proceeding to regain possession of escheated Church property - and swore that the manifesto had prohibited plural marriages, that it required a cessation of all plural marriage living, and that it was being obeyed by the Mormon people." (up, pp. 126-127).

Master in Chancery Hearings:

These hearings were to help decide where the escheated property would go. Many prominent church members testified here.

"About a year after the date of the Manifesto, the question of its scope, as affecting not only polygamous marriages, but also the continuance of polygamous living was made the subject of a searching inquiry before Judge C.F. Loofbourow, at Salt Lake City.  In explanation of this action, it should be known that the United States Supreme Court had decided that all Church property in the hands of the Receiver should remain there pending further action by the Utah courts, and Judge Loofbourow had been appointed a Master in Chancery, to take testimony and determine the uses to which the escheated property might best be applied. ... The hearing before the Master in Chancery took place in October, 1891.  Among the witnesses examined were Presidents Woodruff, Cannon, and Smith, and Elders Lorenzo Snow and Anthon H. Lund of the Council of the Twelve.  According to their testimony, the Manifesto enjoined obedience to the laws of the land enacted against plural marriage, both as to the ceremony and the cohabitation thereunder."  (ph, pp. 489-490).

"On the 19th of October, 1891, President Woodruff was cited before the Master and Chancery to testify to the scope of the Manifesto in the Escheat cases. The question there involved was the subject of unlawful cohabitation. He had issued the Manifesto and was therefore best qualified to interpret the meaning which it had to his mind, or which was conveyed by his language." (ww, pg. 577).

Petition for Amnesty:

"On December 18, 1891, the leaders of the Church petitioned the government for amnesty.  President Benjamin Harrison, who was skeptical of the Saints' sincerity, gradually changed.  By January 4, 1893, he issued a full pardon to those who had been guilty of unlawful cohabitation prior to November 1, 1890, and had obeyed the law since that time and pledged to do so in the future."  (en, pg. 388).

=== 1892 ===

January 15, 1892 - Judge Loofbourow filed his report stating that escheated property from the Church be used by public schools.
February 13, 1892 - Plea for Amnesty presented to Congress from Church authorities.
July 8, 1892 - The Utah Supreme Court ordered the Receiver to turn over all confiscated property to the Secretary of the Interior (Tithing House, Church farm, coal lands, Historian's Office, and the Guardo House).
November 12, 1892 - Judge Zane opinion that personal confiscated property can be used to help repair houses of worship and support the poor.

=== 1893 ===

January 4, 1893 - President Harrison issued a proclamation for amnesty.
April 6, 1893 - SLC Temple dedicated.
May 23, 1893 - SLC Temple opened for ordinances.
October 5, 1893 - Return of Church property - passed House.
October 21, 1893 - Return of Church property - passed Senate.
October 23, 1893 - Return of Church property - House concurs with Senate amendments.
October 25, 1893 - President signs the resolution returning personal Church property.
August 31, 1893 - Utah Supreme Court appoints John R. Winder Receiver for confiscated Church properties.

"A movement to restore the personal property, which had been taken without warrant of law, was already on foot, Delegate Rawlins having presented to Congress, during September, a resolution to that end.  This property was valued at about four hundred thousand dollars. ... By the resolution, the personal property and money of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not arising from the sale or rents of real estate since March 3, 1887, was 'restored to said Church, to be applied under the direction and control of the First Presidency of said Church to the charitable uses and purposes thereof.'" (ph, pg. 502).

"In October of that year, Congress passed a bill restoring the property of the Church.  This act brought some financial relief and was a source of satisfaction to the Saints generally.  Litigation, however, over Church property had been a source of great waste to it.  Many who had urged the confiscation of Church property had realized some of their hopes in the dispossession of it as the litigation over the property had been a source of wealth to them, and although their hopes had been realized, their motives had been revealed."  (ww, pg. 584).

=== 1896 ===

"Statehood year was made memorable to the Latter-day Saints by the return of the Church's real property, taken by the Federal Government under the provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  The confiscated personal property was already restored, and now a joint resolution of the Senate and House, approved by President Cleveland March 28, 1896, returned in like manner the escheated real estate."  (ph, pg. 509).

Official Declaration 1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:
“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

Reference to the manifesto as contained in the current revision of the LDS Church's Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 1

Thursday, October 28, 2010

LDS Church Supreme Court Cases (1880's and 1890's)

While looking up history and documentation, I read about a number of court cases that had been appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.  Most of these cases involved polygamists and the interpretation of the law concerning them, and some concerned the constitutionality of the laws passed to legislate the "Mormon problem."  As a way of making them easier to find (putting them all in one place), I put this post together.

This is NOT an exhaustive list, nor do the descriptions of the cases demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the case.  This is just a short list, with short descriptions to give an overview of each case.  The first trial is from 1878/1879, not exactly 1880, but it's close enough for me.  I saved 136 US 1 (Mormon Church v. U.S.) to the very end.  Although this was by far the longest read of any single case I went through, it was fascinating, I thought, to see how the Supreme Court handled this case. 

Many, many interesting ideas were put forth in all of the cases that I did not quote.  I leave further research for the interested reader, as each case has a web reference attached to it.

Other posts in this series:

  1. [George] Reynolds v. United States
    1. Reference:  98 US 145
    2. Argued:  November 14-15, 1878.  Decided:  May 5, 1879.
    3. 1874:  Church leaders, confident in the unconstitutionality of the Morrill Law (signed July 8, 1862), were anxious to have a "test case" brought before the Supreme Court concerning their First Amendment rights to practice religion.  They did not want to wait around for legislatures to get their polygamy bill right while many of their followers were being harassed.  So, when U.S. attorney, William Carey, promised to stop his attempts to indict Church leaders during the test case trial, the First Presidency (Brigham Young, George A. Smith, Daniel H. Wells) chose 32 year old George Reynolds, a secretary in the office of the Church president, and recently married for a second time to a plural wife, as a defendant (he volunteered) to stand in for the Church.  Reynolds cooperated completely with the prosecution's efforts against him.  He provided witnesses and other evidence necessary to prosecute the case successfully.  Reynolds was convicted in 1875, and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison and a fine of $500 dollars (later changed to 2 years imprisonment only).  The resultant conviction wasn't completely unexpected, but it just meant that appeal would be made to a higher court in the Territory.
    4. 1876:  Utah Territorial Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling.  Appeal is made to the United States Supreme Court for a hearing on First Amendment rights.
    5. 1879:  Key phrase from the Supreme Court ruling:  "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."  In other words, polygamy was ruled an outward practice that can be legislated against, and it will not interfere with 1st Amendment rights.
    6. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "Upon careful consideration of the whole case, we are satisfied that no error was committed by the court below.  Judgment affirmed."  The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862, is constitutional; i.e., George Reynolds is guilty.
  2. [Rudger] Clawson v. United States
    1. Reference:  113 US 143
    2. Argued:  January 5, 1885.  Decided January 19, 1885.
    3. 1884, Oct:  Rudger Clawson is the first unlawful cohabitation case to be prosecuted under the Edmunds Act (signed March 22, 1882) with a trial jury; he is also Judge Charles Zane's first polygamy case.  Rudger Clawson was found guilty of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation by the jury.  He was sentenced to 4 years in prison and an $800 fine.
    4. First of two appeals:  Mr. Clawson was not allowed out on bail when an appeal was pending in the court system (territorial supreme court, etc.).  He sued for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied.
    5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "There is no error in the record, and the judgment is Affirmed."
  3. Murphy v. Ramsey
    1. Reference:  114 US 15
    2. Argued:  January 28, 1885.  Decided:  March 23, 1885.
    3. Five plaintiffs argued that the Utah Commission illegally barred them from voting in the November 1882 election after they supplied proper credentials, and accepted the proper oath. 
    4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  The court ruled that 3 of the 5 were living in a polygamous relationship, and were therefore ineligible to vote - Judgment affirmed.  For the other two, it was found that they should have been allowed to vote and their case was "remanded for further proceedings." 
    5. This ruling declared the Edmunds Act of 1882, constitutional and nullified the test oath formulated by the Utah Commission; they "have no power over the registration of voters or the conduct of elections."
  4. [Rudger] Clawson v. United States
    1. Reference:  114 US 477
    2. Argued:  April 8, 1885.  Decided:  April 20, 1885.
    3. Second of two appeals:  Mr. Clawson "moved to set aside the indictment on the ground that the grand jury was not legally constituted in that qualified grand jurors, drawn and summoned, were illegally excluded from the grand jury on the challenge of the prosecuting attorney that the grand jury selection was allowed improperly."
    4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "The record shows no error, and the judgment is Affirmed."
  5. [Angus M.] Cannon v. United States
    1. Reference:  116 US 55
    2. Argued:  November 20, 23, 1885.  Decided:  December 14, 1885.
    3. 1885, Jan:  Angus M. Cannon, President of the Salt Lake Stake, was brought before a preliminary hearing on charges of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.  In May 1885, he was convicted of unlawful cohabitation; sentenced to 6 months in prison and a $300 fine.
    4. In his appeal, he argued that he had not cohabited with his wives (intimately) since the passage of the Edmunds Law in March 1882; therefore, he could not be guilty of unlawful cohabitation.
    5. The Supreme Court defines unlawful cohabitation:  "Committed by a man who lives in the same house with two women, and eats at their respective tables one-third of his time, or thereabouts, and holds them out to the world, by his language or conduct, or both, as his wives, and it is not necessary to the commission of the offense that he and the two women, or either of them, should occupy the same bed or sleep in the same room or that he should have sexual intercourse with either of them."
    6. Ruling was not unanimous (7-2):  Judgment Affirmed.
      1. Dissenting opinion:  Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field.  "I think that the act of Congress, when prohibiting cohabitation with more than one woman, meant unlawful habitual sexual intercourse. ... I know of no instance in which the word 'cohabitation' has been used to describe a criminal offense where it did not imply sexual intercourse."
  6. [Lorenzo] Snow v. United States
    1. Reference:  118 US 346
    2. Argued:  April 28-29, 1886.  Decided:  May 10, 1886.
    3. 1885, Nov:  Lorenzo Snow was arrested in Brigham City, Utah by 7 Deputy U.S. Federal Marshals.  He was indicted for unlawful cohabitation and stood trial for these offenses in December 1885.  He was the defendant in 3 separate indictments and trials for cohabiting with 7 women in 1883, 1884, and 1885.  He had, like Angus M. Cannon, lived with only one wife (Minnie) for a number of years.  He was convicted in each trial, and sentenced to 6 months in prison (18 months total) and $300 fine ($900 total - $21,000 today).  While his appeal was in process, he was released on $15,000 bail ($350,000 today).
    4. He appealed to the Supreme Court on a writ of error in the judgment rendered - the same as Angus M. Cannon used with his case.
    5. Ruling:  "There is no provision of law under which this Court can review a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory, on a conviction on an indictment for cohabiting with more than one woman [under Section 3 of the Edmunds Act] ... The question of jurisdiction was not considered in fact in that case, nor alluded to in the decision, nor presented to the Court by the counsel for the United States, nor referred to by either party at the argument or in the briefs. Probably both parties desired a decision on the merits. The question was overlooked by all the members of the Court. But as the case was decided at the present term and the want of jurisdiction in it is clear, we have decided to vacate our judgment and recall the mandate and dismiss the writ of error for want of jurisdiction in order that the reported decision may not appear to be a precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in a case of the kind.  Dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
    6. In order to remain consistent, the court also recalled its mandate from the Cannon case and dismissed it also upon the same grounds - dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  7. In Re [Lorenzo] Snow v. United States
    1. Reference:  120 US 274
    2. Argued:  January 21, 1887.  Decided:  February 7, 1887.
    3. Lorenzo Snow's attorney, Franklin S. Richards, filed a writ of habeas corpus after the first term of 6 months in prison had been served.  The writ was denied by Judge Zane, and then appealed.
    4. The court ruled that the three indictments were actually one continuous offense, and that the other two are combined into the first.  This ruling stopped the practice of "segregation" of offenses against polygamists.
    5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "The order and judgment of the District Court for the Third Judicial District of Utah Territory must be reversed and the case be remanded to that court with a direction to grant the writ of habeas corpus prayed for and to take such proceedings thereon as may be in conformity with law and not inconsistent with the opinion of this court."
  8. Hans Nielson, Petitioner
    1. Reference:  131 US 176
    2. Argued:  April 19, 22, 1889.  Decided:  May 13, 1889.
    3. Hans Nielson was convicted of adultery and unlawful cohabitation with the same woman.  These were two separate indictments for the same offense.  He had been in prison for the full term of his unlawful cohabitation sentence when he sued for a writ of habeas corpus.  Like Lorenzo Snow's case before him, it was decided that each of the offenses was actually the same.
    4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "... the conviction of the petitioner of the crime of unlawful cohabitation was a bar to his subsequent prosecution for the crime of adultery; that the court was without authority to give judgment and sentence in the latter case, and should have vacated and set aside the same when the petitioner applied for a habeas corpus; and that the writ should have been granted, and the petitioner discharged.  The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to issue a habeas corpus as prayed for by the petitioner, and proceed thereon according to law."
  9. [Nephi W.] Clayton v. Utah Territory
    1. Reference:  132 US 632
    2. Argued:  December 5, 1889.  Decided:  January 6, 1890.
    3. Mr. Clayton assumed the office of Territorial Auditor in 1879, and was then duly elected to this position in 1880.  The Governor of the Territory of Utah (Eli H. Murray), appointed Arthur Pratt Territory Auditor in 1886; however, the legislature failed to approve of him or any other party brought before them for this position.  Mr. Clayton would not give up his office, paperwork, or anything else having to do with the position.
    4. "Under the organic act of that territory, the power to appoint an auditor of public accounts is vested exclusively in the governor and council."  Mr. Clayton is to vacate the office and turn over all materials of the office to Mr. Pratt.
    5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  The judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Utah is Affirmed.
  10. [Samuel D.] Davis v. Beason
    1. Reference:  133 US 333
    2. Argued:  December 9-10, 1889.  Decided:  February 3, 1890.
    3. Samuel D. Davis registered to be a voter in Oneida County, Idaho, when he was a member of the Mormon Church, "which [he] knew taught, advised, counseled and encouraged its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy as duties arising and resulting from membership in said order."  To do this he lied when taking a "test oath" that stated he was not a member of any organization (like the Mormon Church).  He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $500, or in default of this payment, be remanded to the county jail for 250 days.
    4. Samuel D. Davis sued for a writ of habeas corpus charging that he was illegally imprisoned.
    5. "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of the United States, by the laws of Idaho, and by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries, and to call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind."  This opinion is not open to any constitutional or legal objection.  Additionally, the admission of a test oath to every potential voter "is not open to any valid legal objection."
    6. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  The judgment of the court below is therefore Affirmed.
  11. Mormon Church v. United States
    1. Reference:  136 US 1
    2. Argued:  January 16-18, 1889.  Decided:  May 19, 1890.
    3. The Edmunds-Tucker Act (took effect March 3, 1887) called for the dissolution of the Mormon Church (as a corporation), and forfeiture of all property owned by it (with exception of the Temple Block).  Estimates on February 19, 1887, put Church personal property value at $2 million, and real property value at $1 million.
    4. President John Taylor, as Trustee-in-Trust for the Church, transfered Church property to the Presiding Bishopric (William B. Preston, Robert T. Burton, and John R. Winder) for $1 and other ecclesiastical corporations after the passage of the Act.  These land/property transfers were called "secret trusts" by the court.  The defendant (the Church) avers that it owns no property at this time.  All conveyances of property were annulled by the court - "evidently intended as an evasion of the law that the court below justly regarded it as void and without force or effect."
    5. Receiver Frank Dyer holds the following properties:
      1. Temple Block - worth $500,000.  This was ordered to be given back.
      2. Gardo House and grounds, worth $50,000.
      3. Historians Office and grounds - worth $20,000.
      4. Tithing Office - worth $50,000.
      5. Tithing Office grounds - worth $25,000.
      6. Church Farm - worth $110,000.
      7. Coal lands in Summit County, Utah - worth $30,000.
      8. 800 shares of stock:  Salt Lake Gas Company.  4,732 shares of stock State of Deseret Telegraph Company.  30,158 sheep, $237,666.15 in cash ($5.6 million in 2010).
      9. Current aggregate property amount:  $750,000 ($17.7 million in 2010)
      10. No donations by way of 'tithing' or voluntary contributions are held by the receiver.
    6. Court findings:
      1. Edmunds-Tucker Law is constitutional.
      2. Congress has power to dissolve the corporation of the Church.
      3. Congress has power to dispose of the property of the Church.
    7. Ruling was not unanimous (6-3):  "We have carefully examined the decree, and do not find anything in it that calls for a reversal. It may perhaps require modification in some matters of detail, and for that purpose only the case is reserved for further consideration."
      1. Dissenting opinion:  Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, Mr. Justice Field, and Mr. Justice Lamar.  They felt that Congress had limitations and could not assume powers not specified by the constitution - this forced forfeiture of property/land with subsequent disposal of same being their example of overstepping constitutional powers.
      2. "... no such power as that involved in the act of Congress under consideration is conferred by the Constitution. ... absolute power should never be conceded as belonging under our system of government to anyone of its departments."
  12. Bassett v. United States
    1. Reference:  137 US 496
    2. Argued:  December 10, 1890.  Decided:  December 22, 1890.
    3. William E. Bassett was charged with polygamy and his wife was forced to testify against him, which led to his convition.
    4. "A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage."
    5. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "The wife was an incompetent witness as against her husband ... The judgment of the supreme court of the Territory of Utah is reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to order a new trial."
  13. Cope v. Cope
    1. Reference:  137 US 682
    2. Argued:  December 22, 1890.  Decided:  January 19, 1891.
    3. George A. Cope, son of Thomas Cope by a plural wife, is considered an illegitimate child of Mr. Cope, and is therefore unable to inherit anything from his father's estate.
    4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  "Our conclusion is that the appellant, George A. Cope, is entitled to a share in his father's estate, and the decree of the supreme court of the territory must therefore be Reversed."
  14. The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. United States
    1. Reference:  150 US 145
    2. Submitted:  October 27, 1893.  Decided:  November 6, 1893.
    3. A Joint Resolution of Congress, signed October 25, 1893, nullifies the position of the confiscation of the personal property of the Church as spelled out in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.  The Supreme Court case Mormon Church v. U.S. ruled on this decision, and now Congress has seen fit to stop the property confiscation and return it to the Church.  This is a ruling on a decree to modify the language of the previous ruling (and law) to agree with the Congressional Joint Resolution.
    4. Ruling was unanimous (9-0):  Ordered accordingly.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - Edward E. Barthell

April 20, 1904

Mr. Barthell is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, and is a lawyer by trade; practicing law for the last 15 years (Slemmons & Barthell).

He is a member of a group of men that meet regularly and sometimes discuss religion.  In 1900, he was asked, by this group of men, to lead a discussion; he picked Mormonism as the subject.  He wrote to the Mormon Mission President in Chattanooga, Tennessee (he believes the name of the respondent to his letter was Ben E. Rich), for literature concerning the Mormon faith.  In consequence of his letter, a Mormon Elder came to him (George F. Fox) along with several tracts and two books:  (1)  Orson Pratt's Works and (2) "Tracts from the Southern States Mission."  According to the missionary that visited with him, "Orson Pratt's works were accepted by the Mormons as absolutely authentic."

As an aside, Ben E. Rich served as Mission President for the Southern States Mission for ten years.  He was there between 1899-1900 when Mr. Barthell sent him a letter, and when George F. Fox was asked to meet with Mr. Barthell.

The missionary next was invited to visit the group of men during a discussion on Mormonism.
The Chairman.  Can you give the committee some idea what this missionary said about the church and its doctrines?
Mr. Barthell.  Well, he said a great deal, Senator.  Among other things, he said that there was no trouble at all in performing miracles; that if a person had only one arm there was no trouble to give him two.
Mr. Worthington.  I would like to see him.  [Laughter]
Mr. Barthell.  We asked something about speaking in tongues.  I called attention to some of the literature which said that it was perfectly useless to undertake to study different books; that all you had to do was to talk.  He said that was absolutely true; that he had seen it himself even in Indian dialects, and a great many curious things of that general character.
The Chairman.  Did he impart to your association his ideas on the question of polygamy?
Mr. Barthell.  Yes.
The Chairman.  And the teachings of the church in that regard?
Mr. Barthell.  Yes.
The Chairman.  What did he say?
Mr. Barthell.  He said that polygamy was taught of God; that it was right, but that it had been abandoned; that it was not now followed by the good Mormons; that polygamous cohabitation still continued.  In other words, he did not exactly say that.  He said the cohabs still followed their customs.  He referred to them as cohabs, which was an expression we did not at first understand ... when he appeared before the club, we did not think that he had sufficient breadth of information to treat, certainly from an intellectual standpoint, that question, and we did not press him.  He was our guest.
Commentary:  It would appear from this discussion that missionaries sometimes traveled alone - they never do that today.  They also gave books away written by prominent Church members.  They fearlessly declared their beliefs and did not back away from any of them.  Nice little window into missionary work in the late 1800's (possibly early 1900's).  I suppose this piece of testimony was given to show that missionaries of the Church continue to teach about the doctrine of polygamy, even when Church authorities say this isn't happening.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - B.H. Roberts

April 20, 1904

Mr. Roberts is a resident of Centerville, Utah (north of Salt Lake about 10 miles).  He was born in England, but came to the United States as a boy and has lived most of his life in Utah.  He is currently one of the seven "first presidents of seventy" and has been such since 1888.  He is also an assistant historian of the Church (there are 4 assistants total, with Anthon H. Lund being the Historian), and he assists President Joseph F. Smith in the organization of young men in the Church.

He was elected as a member of the constitutional convention for the State of Utah in 1894.

Mr. Roberts has authored several books, among which are the following:  Biography of John Taylor; A New Witness for God; Outlines of Ecclesiastical History; The Gospel; The Missouri Persecutions; The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo; Documentary History of the Church (two volumes so far); Succession in the Presidency; and a pamphlet called 'Mormonism.'

Mr. Roberts has been married 3 times:  first in 1877, next in 1886, and finally to his third wife in 1890.  The last two marriages were to plural wives.  The last marriage took place in a house of First Street in Salt Lake during April, 1890, and was performed by Daniel H. Wells - there were no witnesses.

Mr. Tayler.  So far as the control of the membership of the church is concerned, as a church organization, where do the first presidents of the seventies rank as respects the apostles, for instance?
Mr. Roberts.  They rank next to the apostles.
Mr. Tayler.  What, if any, relation exists between the first presidents or the presidents of the seventies and the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts.  No relation whatever, further than a common relation of brotherhood.
Mr. Tayler.  The first presidents, therefore, have no authority over the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts.  None at all.
Mr. Tayler.  Nor the stake presidents over the presidents of the seventies, except as they would have over them in their individual capacity?
Mr. Roberts.  As members.
Commentary:  This section of testimony is actually straight-forward for any current member of the Church.  It shows the position of authority of the presidents of Seventy within the Church hierarchy.

In 1895, Mr. Roberts ran for a Congressional seat in Utah and was defeated by a Mr. Allen.  During this time, he admits to having differences with Church authorities over his involvement with politics.  Here is his description of the events of that time:
     "Previous to my becoming a candidate for member of the constitutional convention, there had some unpleasantness arisen about men in high church standing having anything to do in politics, and the presidency of the church at that time decided that members of the quorum of apostles, members of my own council, the presidents of the seventy, and the presidents of the stakes, and the bishops of the wards, would better stay out of politics, and to that I consented or agreed.  But during my brief absence from the State in the fall of 1894, I was nominated by our county convention to be a member of the constitutional convention, and on my return, being informed of the nomination, in conversation with some friends I stated that it was a nomination I could not accept owing to the previous arrangement that men of my standing in the church should not take part in politics.
     "But I was informed that during my absence that order had been somewhat changed, at least, and that it was thought there would be too many men of standing in the community eliminated from so important a gathering as a constitutional convention, and that it had been decided better that liberty be granted men of the character I have described to enter into politics, and at least to accept these nominations.  I inquired of the authorities of the church if that was correct, and was informed that it was.
     "In 1894, in company with Mr. Rawlins, I stumped the State and was elected to the convention. ... In the midst of the campaign, at a meeting of the priesthood of the church in Salt Lake City, Mr. [Joseph F.] Smith made some reference to Moses Thatcher and myself ... as having accepted these nominations, which would take us away from our ecclesiastical duties, without consultation with any of the apostles or the first presidency; and his remarks were in the nature of a complaint of that conduct.  Whereupon a number of men who had heard these remarks took it upon themselves to circulate the idea that Mr. Thatcher and myself were out of harmony with the church authorities, and that it would be agreeable to them to have us defeated.  And very naturally we protested.  I protested, and I think Mr. Thatcher also protested, against the action of these lesser authorities of the church making use of the casual remarks of Mr. Smith.  The country was considerably agitated.  Newspapers took it up; and that agitation resulted in the reconvening of the Democratic convention for the purpose of defining the attitude that the Democrats would take in that issue [the alleged exercise of religious influence in a political contest]."

The Chairman.  Then you made this inquiry of the first presidency [to accept the nomination for the Constitutional Convention]?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes; one of the presidents of the church.  I asked him if the rule with which I was acquainted had been altered, and he informed me that it had been.  This was in 1894.
The Chairman.  Who constituted the first presidency at that time?
Mr. Roberts.  Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith.
The Chairman.  Of which one did you inquire?
Mr. Roberts.  Mr. Smith.
The Chairman.  You have stated that your defeat would be "agreeable to them."  Whom do you mean by them?
Mr. Roberts.  I mean that the parties who carried this report from the priesthood meeting represented that it would be agreeable to the first presidency and the apostles for us to be defeated.  It was out of these circumstances that the friction counsel refers to arose between the authorities and myself.
Mr. Tayler.  In that convention and through that campaign you, in very bitter terms, inveighed against this intrusion of the church into politics?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.  I should like to disclaim any bitterness in the matter.
Mr. Tayler.  I do not want to characterize improperly the language that you used vigorously and most earnestly then?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  So vigorously and so earnestly that the higher authorities of the church assumed a similar attitude toward you - of vigorous and earnest opposition to your position?
Mr. Robert.  I think that is right.

Commentary:  Short summary - Mr. Roberts was upset that he was told one thing by Joseph F. Smith in private, and then heard of a completely different opinion from him concerning his political involvement.  This upset him.  The subsequent "vigorous and earnest" expressions, from both sides, I'm sure did little to diffuse this situation.

I'm putting this next section of testimony in because I find it interesting in light of the history of the times.  I wonder if this was a normal reaction for the people of this time.
Senator Overman.  Was it necessary to get the consent of any of the authorities of the church to marry a plural wife?
Mr. Roberts.  It was necessary to get those who were understood to hold the authority to perform the ceremony.
Senator Overman.  Did your first wife or your second wife consent to your marrying the third wife?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Overman.  Did they protest against it?
Mr. Roberts.  I did not hear the question.
Senator Overman.  Was there any protest on their part?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Did they know of it at the time?
Mr. Roberts.  Not at the time.
Mr. Tayler.  When did they learn of it?
Mr. Roberts.  I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Tayler.  I mean about when - how long afterwards?
Mr. Roberts.  Two or three years afterwards, I think.
Mr. Tayler.  Did anybody know about it, so far as you know, until several years had elapsed?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  How is that?  I understand you to say, sir, that your marriage to your third wife was not known to any of your wives for three years.
Mr. Roberts.  No; I cannot say when they knew it.
Senator Beveridge.  Well, for a considerable period?
Mr. Roberts.  Hardly that.  There were a number of our friends who knew it.
Senator Beveridge.  But not your other two wives?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Why did you conceal this third marriage from your other wives?
Mr. Roberts.  Chiefly for the purpose of relieving them from any embarrassment should the discovery of the marriage by made.  Of course we understood that the marriage was illegal.
Senator Beveridge.  Then, how could they be embarrassed?
Mr. Roberts.  If called upon to testify, they would not wish to testify against me.
Senator Beveridge.  Oh!
Mr. Roberts.  If was known to a number of our friends I think shortly afterwards - that is, a few months afterwards.  But it was not generally known until some time in 1895 or 1896, perhaps.
Commentary:  This section of testimony speaks to the necessary authority:  Just someone who has been given the authority to marry.  And, this section speaks to how Mr. Roberts informed his two other wives of a new marriage:  he didn't.  This marriage was kept a secret for some two or three years from these wives.  There appears to be a time when friends of Mr. Roberts knew of the marriage even before his other wives (if I'm reading the testimony correctly).  I find this humorous only because of a hypothetical Q&A between Mr. Roberts and the other wives.  "And, when were you going to tell us you got married again?"

Senator Dubois.  Could you, occupying the position which you did in the church, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  I did do so, with the exception of Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois.  Mr. Wells was one of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  He was.
Senator Dubois.  Did Mr. Wells represent the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  I think likely he did.
Senator Dubois.  Then you took your plural wife with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, did you not?
Mr. Roberts.  I did not know of any of them having any knowledge of it except Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois.  Mr. Wells, as I said awhile ago, represented the authorities, did he not?
Mr. Roberts.  He was one of the authorities.
Senator Dubois.  What was his position at that time?
Mr. Roberts.  He was councilor to the twelve apostles.
Senator Beveridge.  To get to the point of Senator Dubois's question, do you know of anything that has come to your knowledge that leads you now to understand that Mr. Wells, when he learned of this contemplated marriage, told the other authorities, of whom he was one of the councilors?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Previously in the testimony of B.H. Roberts, this piece about Daniel H. Wells was given.  I am inserting it here so as to give clarity to the ecclesiastical position of Mr. Wells in the Church hierarchy.
Mr. Tayler.  Who was Daniel H. Wells?  What was his position?
Mr. Roberts.  Daniel H. Wells at that time was sustained as councilor to the apostles.  He had been a councilor to President Brigham Young, and was continued in that capacity - that is, a councilor to the twelve apostles, who were during an interim the presiding authorities of the church.
Mr. Tayler.  Now, your language is somewhat guarded in that respect, and no doubt it is in order to be accurate about it, and not for any other reason.  Do you mean he was not what we now understand to be one of the councilors to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts.  No; he was not, because there was no first presidency in existence at that time.
Mr. Tayler.  Exactly.  But his status was akin to that of a councilor to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Had he been a councilor to the first president immediately preceding?
Mr. Robers.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  Was he a councilor to the next first president?
Mr. Roberts.  No.
Mr. Tayler.  The first president himself selects the councilors, I believe?
Mr. Roberts.  He does.
Mr. Tayler.  Daniel H. Wells had been for many years a very prominent official in the Mormon Church?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Commentary:  This discussion is focused on the authorities of the church and their knowledge, or lack thereof, concerning plural marriages.  This goes directly to a point of complaint that the authorities of the church continue to encourage plural marriages either by not stopping them or by participating or officiating at them.  Apparently no one outside of Daniel H. Wells knew that a first president of the seventy had taken a plural wife.  This event did not come to the attention of any other Church authorities.  I suppose that the men in authority do not speak to each other about these events???  If this is true, then there is a very real possibility for a great many plural marriages to take place without their knowledge.  I cannot tell if this decision to keep the knowledge is calculated or situational.

Mr. Roberts is then asked about the plural marriage ceremony, and he talks about it, but only in a general way.
Mr. Tayler.  Was the ceremony a simple ceremony, whereby -
Mr. Roberts.  I understood it was the usual ceremony used by the Mormon Church in the temples.
Mr. Tayler.  Was it the same ceremony, practically, as that by which you married Celia Dibble?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Was it the same as that by which you married your first wife?
Mr. Roberts.  It was, as I understood it.
Commentary:  OK, that's not much, but it is something.  If correct, this means that the ceremony performed in the home, is the same ceremony performed in the temple and the same as the one performed in the Endowment House (before it was torn down).  Nothing specific is mentioned, but it is interesting to know that he believed they were essentially the same in substance.

Mr. Tayler is curious as to why Mr. Roberts would violate a law of the land after knowing of the laws Congress passed, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Why did he feel himself "called upon to violate the law of the land":
"In explanation of that conduct I wish to say that from my boyhood I had been taught the rightfulness of plural marriage.  I believed that doctrine and believed it to be a commandment of God.  I knew that the law of God was in conflict with the statutes enacted by Congress.  I regarded it as binding upon my conscience to obey God rather than man, and hence I accepted that doctrine and practiced it; that is all."

Of course, he cannot get away with this statement without a few questions from the committee members.
The Chairman.  This revelation or this manifesto of 1890 you think was inspired by God?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes; in a way.
Senator Overman.  You say the manifesto was a revelation of God?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Overman.  What do you mean by being inspired of God?
Mr. Roberts.  I believe that a revelation from God, of course, is a direct, uncolored communication from the Divine to man.  I believe that a man may be an inspired man, but yet more or less of the human characteristics of the man may enter into his actions.  I believe, however, that this manifesto was an official act of the church, that the church was perfectly competent to pass it, and I believe it binding upon the members of the church.
Senator Overman.  That it was a human institution, rather than from God?
Mr. Roberts.  I would not like to say it was not inspired of God.  I rather think that President Woodruff, to meet the hard conditions confronting him, was inspired of the spirit of the Lord to take that course.
Commentary:  Not a revelation, but inspired (in a way) by circumstances surrounding the Church in 1890; and then implemented as a Church policy by President Woodruff.  The Senators were trying to have him define the Manifesto as he had hinted - not a revelation, and not completely inspired.  He didn't want any part of that; although, he answer was not as strong and confident as I would have supposed it should have been.  I guess it stands to reason that if you break the laws of man and the Manifesto by living with polygamous wives, your opinion of the Manifesto may be a little different than others as to its inspiration/revelatory nature.

Recess for lunch is taken from 11:50 AM to 2:00 PM.

To start out, Mr. Robert is asked to define the basic duties of a Seventy.
Mr. Tayler.  What are the seventies?
Mr. Roberts.  The seventies constitute in the church with the twelve apostles what is recognized as the foreign ministry of the church.  They are the propaganda of the church.
     In further explanation I will say that the quorums consist of 70 persons, and over each quorum there is what we call a council of 7 presidents.  Then the first quorum, organized in the same way, has a general jurisdiction over the entire body of seventies.
Senator Overman.  How many seventies are there?
Mr. Roberts.  There are about 145 quorums.  All of the quorums, however, are not full.  We estimate, perhaps, that there are between nine and ten thousand men in the body.
Commentary:  The Seventies are no longer a position that lay members of the Church in a Stake are called to (this was discontinued in 1986 - check wikipedia for more information and history).  I think the use of the word propaganda is old for today, but I assume it was perfect for that time.

Mr. Tayler then directs the questioning back to the subject of the Manifesto and its perceived authority within the Church.  It makes sense that this would be revisited because there just wasn't enough time before lunch to fully get a sense of his understanding along these lines.
Mr. Tayler.  Now, Mr. Roberts, you have characterized this manifesto of 1890 in such a way as to leave the impression upon my mind that you would not call it a specific and direct revelation, such as other revelations that the people of your church believe in.  Was that inference of mine justified by your statement?
Mr. Roberts.  I think it was.
Mr. Tayler.  Then, will you define the character that you attribute to that manifesto as a revelation or inspiration, its origin and its force?
Mr. Roberts.  I regard the manifesto as an administrative act of the president of the church, accepted by the church, and of binding force upon its members.  But I regard it as an administrative act which President Woodruff, holding in his own hands the direct authority controlling that particular matter - that is, the matter of marriages - had a perfect right to make, and the acceptance of that action by the church makes that a positive binding law upon the church.
Mr. Tayler.  And those who do not obey it are subject to the pains and penalties such as a church under its discipline may inflict upon its members who disobey it?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Commentary:  This appears to be the understanding - in more detail - of B.H. Roberts concerning the manifesto.  Earlier he stated that he wouldn't call it revelation, but rather, inspiration.  Here he confirms that previous statement and says the inspiration was in the form of an administrative act.  I won't touch this set of the discussion anymore, but rather let the words stand for themselves.

He is asked once again to explain his viewpoint with keeping the manifesto and why he is breaking a law of the church.  Like the previous witnesses that have testified before him, his response is extremely similar:
"... the part of it relating to plural marriages prohibits the bringing into existence of those relations.  In the other case the relations exist and men in my status are confronted by a very awkward and trying situation.  Of course, we know that our lives are in violation of the law of the land, and by this action of the church they are brought into violation of the rules and law of the church, and yet there are moral obligations and responsibilities that we feel, in our relations with our wives, we cannot easily - at least I cannot - set aside.  Consequently, under those trying circumstances, I presume that others, with myself, are doing the best we can to meet what we regard as our moral obligations to those families.  That is my status on the subject at least."

This ends the direct examination by Mr. Tayler.  Mr. Van Cott then proceeds with the cross-examination.

Mr. Van Cott asks about the conflict between Church authorities and Mr. Roberts.  Mr. Roberts is given a chance to explain everything he wants to, in detail, concerning this conflict.
     "The commencement of the difficulty arose out of the remarks of Mr. Joseph F. Smith at a priesthood meeting in which he made complaint that Mr. Thatcher and I had accepted nominations for political office, which would take us from our religious duties, without leave of absence or without obtaining the consent to be released from our religious duties by the first presidency or any of the twelve.
     "In explanation of their insistence that that is what we ought to have done, they made declarations in the press and out of that, as I say, grew the general excitement of the campaign.  After the close of the campaign they proposed to reduce to writing, to a written rule, the idea or the doctrine that men upon whose whole time the church had a claim should obtain leave of absence or permission in that sense to engage either in business that would take them away from their religious duties or in receiving political nominations.
     "I was unwilling at first to subscribe to that rule, for the reason that it had been charged in the prologue or preface to the Democratic declaration of principles that through that means they might seek to control the political affairs of the State.  It was charged, I think, in speeches and in the papers, that they might give their consent, for instance, to one man to participate in politics and withhold it from another, or the people might be led to interpret their willingness to excuse one man from religious duties to mean that they favored both his nomination and his election and in this way bring their influence to bear upon the politics of the State.
     "It was upon that point especially that I made my contest against them.  In the course of several meetings with them for the purpose of discussing these matters, however, they satisfied me that it was not their intention to control the politics of the State, but they sought only the management of their own ecclesiastical affairs; and in consequence of being convinced that that was their purpose I joined with them in signing the rule that hereafter men should not accept positions of any kind that would take them from the performance of their ecclesiastical duties without the consent of their superiors."

Senator Bailey then dissects the political rule of the Church, trying to determine if any church or body of men, ought to hold sway over citizens of the country who want to run for political office or who are appointed to political office.  Here's a sampling:
"I should regard any organization in this country - religious, industrial, or of any other character - as not to be tolerated if it teaches that those who profess to follow it cannot perform the duties of a good citizen.  You are a man of great intelligence and you are thoroughly familiar with the subject, and I would like to hear what explanation - you can give as good a one as any man connected with the church - they have for declaring that a man cannot be a good Christian and a good citizen at the same time, in effect.
"I never like to see a man's religion and patriotism in conflict.  That is the embarrassing thing to me."

Both Mr. Roberts and Senator Bailey go back and forth for a few minutes on this.  My take on this is that Senator Bailey doesn't believe Mr. Roberts fully understands what this political rule of the Church actually requires of its leadership.  Mr. Roberts cannot get Senator Bailey to comprehend that it is merely the Church trying to manage its leadership.

Mr. Tayler asks a few more questions, and the story he paints here with his questions is quite interesting with regards to possible Church interference in the politics of the State.
Mr. Tayler.  Now, in the campaign of 1895, feelings ran very high on the subject of alleged church interference in politics, did it not?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  Very high.  And doubtless there were a good many inflammatory and perhaps ill-considered statements made by those on either side of that question?
Mr. Roberts.  I think that is true.
Mr. Tayler.  You yourself talked rather heatedly on the subject, did you not?
Mr. Roberts.  I think I did, sometimes.
Mr. Tayler.  Do you remember the statement that was made during that campaign that Apostle [Francis M.] Lyman had attended a meeting of his people somewhere outside of Salt Lake City, elsewhere in Utah, in which he urged them to divide up - part of them to go on one side, part of them to the other side, and part of them to stay in between - so that they might switch at will from one side to the other?
Mr. Roberts.  My recollection is that such a charge was made against Mr. Lyman, which, however, in justice to him, I ought to say he disclaimed.
Commentary:  Wow, if the Church was engaged in that, I would consider it a very serious charge.  Mr. Lyman disclaimed the statement, so apparently nothing came of this.  I wonder if this was just a frivolous statement made by an anti-Mormon, or if there was actually some sliver of truth in the statement.

The cross has now completed, and so the Chairman decides it is time for him to take over.  He then submits his usual "tell me about the Mormon temple ceremony" line of questions to Mr. Roberts for answers.
The Chairman.  Do you know, Mr. Roberts, of any change in the ceremony performed in the endowment house, and as it is performed today in the temple?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  The ceremony is the same.  Now, will you state to the committee what the ceremony was, or is, as nearly as you can?
Mr. Roberts.  Well, the ceremonies consist of what would be considered a series of ceremonies, I take it, of which I only have a general impression.
The Chairman.  You have something more than a general impression in your own case?
Mr. Roberts.  No; I think not.
The Chairman.  Can you tell the committee any portion of that ceremony?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Why not?
Mr. Roberts.  Well, for one reason, I do not feel at liberty to do so.
The Chairman.  Why not?
Mr. Roberts.  Because I consider myself in trust in relation to those matters, and I do not feel at liberty to make any disclosures in relation to them.
The Chairman.  It was then a secret?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
The Chairman.  Does this religious denomination have, as one of its ceremonies, secret obligations or covenants?
Mr. Roberts.  I think they could not be properly called secrets.  Of course they are common to all worthy members of the church, and generally known by them.
The Chairman.  Well, secret from the world?
Mr. Roberts.  Secret from the world.
The Chairman.  The obligations and covenants, whatever they are, then, you are not at liberty to disclose?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.  I would be led to regard those obligations as similar to those who perhaps have passed through Masonic fraternities, or are members of Masonic fraternities.
The Chairman.  Then your church organization in that particular is a sort of Masonic fraternity?
Mr. Roberts.  It is analogous, perhaps, in some of its features.
The Chairman.  The reason you have assigned is accepted.  The obligation, whatever it is, taken in the endowment house, is such that you do not feel at liberty to disclose it?
Mr. Roberts.  That is right.
The Chairman.  Do you recall whether any penalty was imposed upon a person who should disclose the covenants?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  You do not remember?
Mr. Roberts.  Beyond the disfavor and distrust of his fellows.
Commentary:  Questions asked and answered.  I cringed only when the reference to the LDS ceremonies were "analogous" to the Masonic fraternity.

There is more questioning on the ceremony, but Mr. Roberts continues to state that he cannot reveal what the Chairman wants to know.  In the end, it is finally dropped.

He is allowed to answer a general question on the content of the endowment ceremony, which I think is worthy to be included here.
Mr. Worthington.  I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or ceremony to which you refer, in the endowment house, relates entirely to things spiritual, or whether it relates to things temporal also?
The Chairman.  Would it not be better, Mr. Worthington, to let him state what the obligation is?
Mr. Worthington.  Yes, so far as I am concerned, I would very much prefer it; but I understand the suggestion by Senator Pettus was that he was interpreting that which he would not state.  Of course I do not know anything more about this than the members of the committee do, but I think it might very well be that a witness might be allowed to state, and might properly say, that he would answer here as to anything that related to any temporal affairs, but as to things which related to matters between him and his God, or which be conceived to be between him and his God, he would not answer here or anywhere else, and that would not be an interpretation, but would simply be taking the protection which I understand the law gives to every man - that as to things which do relate entirely to religious matters, they are matters which he has a right to keep within his own breast.
Mr. Roberts.  I regard them as relating to things spiritual, absolutely.

Commentary:  That was a good explanation - a bunch of interpretation or rights and what could/could not be said with limited information.  In the end, Mr. Roberts was allowed to give his opinion and short interpretation of what the Senators were not allowed to see.  I wonder if the committee dismissed it all because they could determine if his conclusion was valid or not due to a lack of source material to judge from.