Laws Against Polygamy - 1882 (Edmunds Act)

Other posts in this series:

• Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862
• Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887
• Manifesto of 1890
• Supreme Court Cases (1878-1893)

History and Background to this Bill:

Mormon people passionately believed that passage of the 1862 Morrill anti-bigamy act was unconstitutional, and that God would set it right punishing the nation that enacted it.  They were following God's commandments, and He would protect them from all evil for so doing.  Because of this belief, and their faith in God, they began to live in defiance of the law and hide the law-breaking of it; a tradition that would carry on until the present day with some break-away Mormon fundamentatlist groups.

These people believe the law to be an infringement by the government on their constitutional right to freely practice religion.  Marriage, they claim, is an institution declared by God, and is therefore a religious observance and rite.  It necessarily follows that government has no business to regulate or legislate the religious practice of marriage.  The LDS leaders and people were counting on the fact that the court system would agree with them and strike down this law based upon its unconstitutional attempt to legislate a religious practice - even if they had to appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the end, God would "make bare His arm" (scripture references:  I Nephi 22:11; D&C 133:3) and clear the path for those of His children attempting to live His revealed religion, and the interpretation of the First Amendment, would be the safety line for the Saints of God :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." (Bill of Rights:  First Amendement of the U.S. Constitution).

The Constitution of the United States was an inspired document (D&C 101:77, 80); therefore, the Lord would not destroy it, but fix the laws that corrupted it - the Saints hoped the Supreme Court would be inspired to right this wrong.

In the end, this belief would not prove to save the Saints.  The courts would not overturn the law of 1862, but would rather uphold it - religious outward practice is liable to be legislated for/against, and the law is therefore constitutional.  It is a man's religious belief that was protected with the law.

Currently [1862+], the government of the United States could do nothing in the short term to address this issue of defiance.  Prosecution of this law proved extremely difficult.  Obtaining proof that an actual wedding ceremony occurred was almost impossible given that the ceremonies took place secretly (and were not publicly recorded), the parties themselves would never admit the offense, and the community at large protected and shielded the couple and the practice of this religious ceremony.  Congress was urged to do more to stop this situation, and accordingly several pieces of legislation were introduced as an attempt to resolve what became known as the "Mormon Problem" or "Mormon Question." 

As an aside, due to the increasing hostility between the Federal Government and the Utah Mormons, several full-time lobbyists were employed by the Church in Washington so as to present their case to the leaders of this nation.  With all of the legislation on this list, it would seem an appropriate counter-measure tactic by the Church.

 The following is a very brief overview of some legislation and other events in between the passage of the Morrill Law in 1862, and the passage of the Edmunds Law in 1882.


1866 - Wade bill
The purpose of this bill appeared to be the destruction of local self-government in Utah.  The militia would be put under control of the Governor, with all officers of the Territory to be chosen by him, including members of both grand and petit juries and probate judges in all counties.  Additionally, Mormon religious officers would not be allowed to solemnize marriages, and the church trustee-in-trust  would be required to report once a year for an accounting of "all church properties, moneys in bank notes, deposits with the church, etc."

The bill died on the Senate calendar.


1867 - Utah Territorial legislature
The territorial legislature asks Congress to repeal the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862.  Instead of repealing it, the House Judiciary Committee wants to know why it is not being enforced.  Oops, that kind of backfired.


1867 / 1869 - Cragin bill (introduced twice)
This was an amendment to the Wade bill in that everything it had, the Cragin bill did as well; with a few other additions that even today seem rather outlandish.  To wit, a trial by jury would be done away with for those accused of violating the 1862 Morrill anti-bigamy act.

The bill never came up for vote; although there were many that did approve of its draconian measures of law enforcement.


1869 - Ashley bill
This bill's objective was for a near total dismemberment of the territory of Utah - blot out Utah almost completely allowing it to be swallowed up into surrounding territories.  However, it was believed that by doing this the Mormons would then politically control the other territories (Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado), and therefore the bill was abandoned.

"The idea of dividing the territory up among the ajoining territories is not practicable now; under it, the Mormons, instead of being divided and conquered, would divide and conquer; for with their number and discipline, they could out-vote and out-manage three territories."

1869 (May 10) - Transcontinental Railroad completed
Promontory Point, Utah, was the location for the completion of the transcontinental railroad.  The railroad brought people, goods, and a greater degree of civilization (Babylon in the eyes of Mormons) to Utah.  It permanently connected Utah with the outside world.  No longer was the Great Basin hidden and secluded.  It was now a part of the rest of the continental United States, and accessible like the rest.


1870 - Julian bill
Washington had the impression that polygamy in Utah existed only because the women were degraded and had no choice in it.  They postulated that if women could vote in Utah, polygamy would be destroyed because the women would vote it out of existence.  The response to their theories were met with extremely positive reviews in Utah.  After Utah's representative supported the bill, and positive editorials were published in the Deseret News, the ardor of the anti-Mormons was dampened, and the bill never came up for vote.  The fever was caught though, and the Utah territorial legislature passed a measure allowing women to vote in 1870 - a first.


1870 - Cullom bill
The bill is reported (rumored?) to have been written by Robert N. Baskin of Salt Lake City; he was regarded as a very bitter opponent of the Church and would properly be labled, anti-Mormon.  Most of the provisions of the Cragin bill are incorporated in the Cullom bill.  Some of the previous bills on this list also have their origin in Utah with anti-Mormon political activists.

Finding a summary of what was actually in this bill wasn't as easy as I hoped.  No online site that I could find (easily available via Google's search engine), had a listing of the bill's full text.  All I found were comments to the effect of:  "It's bad, and it didn't pass."  All of the books I read had similar summaries.  Well, that's fine and dandy, but not good enough for what I wanted to know.  Now that it was not easy to find, I wanted to see the whole thing - top to bottom, front to back and decide for myself.  So, I found the Congressional Record for 1870 - courtesy of my local university law library.  On February 16, 1870, the bill was introduced (House bill number 1089) by the chairman of the Committee on Territories, Representative Shelby Moore Cullom of Illinois. 

There were a total of 34 sections in the bill.  As I mentioned before, this bill had a lot of similarities to the previoulsly discussed Craigin bill.  I wanted to point out 2 interesting sections from the bill:

Sec. 13.  And be it further enacted, That any man in said Territory who shall after this act goes in effect live or cohabit with one woman or more, other than his lawful wife, as his wife or wives, shall be adjudged guilty of the crime of concubinage, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding $1,000, and by imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor not exceeding five years, and in all prosecutions for the violation of this section the alleged concubines of the accused shall be competent witnesses to establish or disprove the charge.

Sec. 32.  And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is empowered and directed, when in his judgment it shall be necessary to enforce the laws of said Territory, or the convictions and sentences of the courts thereof, to send such a portion of the Army of the United States to said Territory as shall be required therefore, and, in case a sufficient portion of said Army cannot with safety be detached from duty in other portions of the country to accomplish the same the President is empowered and directed further to accept and receive into the military service of the United States volunteers to the number of not exceeding forty thousand, and for such term of service as he may deem proper, not exceeding two years.  And the Secretary of War is directed and required to make such rules and regulations for the movement and transportation of the troops and the enlistment of volunteers as shall be necessary.

Those convicted of polygamy could not vote or hold office.  Before taking office, an oath would be administered that said you never have taken arms against the U.S., and that you are not a polygamist.  Only people appointed by the government could perform marriages (no Mormon Elders), etc.  The rest is a fair summary of previous bills.  It is interesting that plural wives are now called concubines.

Even the Missouri representative, never a friend of the Mormons, complained of the bill's sweeping unfairness:

"The superfluous wives of Young and his followers are declared concubines and their offspring bastards and both women and children are literally turned out of doors and consigned to the cold charities of the world.  The punishment of these comparatively innocent parties is actually more severe than that inflicted upon the more guilty.  The male polygamist may escape scot free by simply giving up his female companions, but in any event [the wives and children] are reduced to pauperism at once, and forced to beg, starve, or do worse."

The New York World recognized that if the Cullom Bill passed, it could mean war:

"If we force them into a hostile attitude, the Mormons can give us a very disagreeable, a very wearisome, and tremendously expensive war.  The government should not forcibly interfere with polygamy or Mormonism at all."

The bill was allowed to die on the Senate calendar after passing the House.


1871 (October) - Brigham Young indicted for adultery
He was under house arrest from January to April of 1872.  The charges were eventually dismissed.


In 1873 and 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant believed the situation in Utah had reached a tipping point.  Where were the convictions for polygamy?  How can Brigham Young and so many other of these Mormon leaders openly defy the law and not be brought to trial and convicted?  What is going on out there?  He was willing to intervene militarily and compel the people of Utah to obey the law unless Congress could pass legislation to control the Mormons.  He talked with Congress about this problem and urged them to act, and act soon.


1873 - Logan bill and Merritt bill
The logan bill was similar to previous bills that had been presented and failed.  It removed the ability of the people of Utah to self-govern.  It did not pass. 

Merritt's bill was very much like the Cullom bill of 1870.  It likewise received the same treatment - filed in the garbage can of congressional history; it also did not pass.


1874 - Brigham spends the night in the penitentiary
Brigham Young was brought to trial, not convicted, fined $25 for contempt of court and ordered to spend one night in prison.  The fallout over this was almost immediate:  Chief Justice McKean, Land Registrar George Maxwell, and the Judge of the trial were replaced.


1874 - Poland law
House bill 3097 was introduced, and shortly thereafter passed.  It passed Congress on June 23, and was signed the next day by President Grant.  This was the first law against the Mormons in Utah since the 1862 bill - it only took 12 additional years to find agreement on this.

This law removed from the probate courts of Utah all criminal, civil, and chancery jurisdiction.  The territorial marshal and attorney general of the territory were abolished and their duties were assigned to the United States marshal and the United States assistant district attorney.  The bill essentially dismantled the judicial system in Utah.  There were many people in both Utah and Washington that did not believe the law was harsh enough to be effective; however, individuals could now be brought to trial for breaking the Morrill law.

Immediately the United States attorney tried to bring leading Church officials to trial, but experienced problems.  Many of the brethren had married before the 1862 law was passed, and could not be tried ex post facto.  Furthermore, the wives could not be required to testify against their husbands, and the marriage records for the temple(s) were not public record.  These frustrations at prosecution of polygamy helped form the backbone of the next bill that would become a law.


1874 - George Reynolds "test case" 
Church leaders, confident in the unconstitutionality of the Morrill law, 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.


1875 - President Ulysses S. Grant visits Utah (October)
After his arrival by train (large tangent:  I can't help but think of Wild Wild West with Jim West and Artemus Gordon protecting President Grant out in the west), he was driven into Salt Lake in an open carriage, and witnessed several thousand Sunday School children lining both sides of East Temple, dressed in white, welcoming him to Utah.  The children impressed him.  He turned to Governor Emery and said:  "Whose children are these?"  "Mormon children," answered the governor.  For several moments the President was silent, and then he murmured, in a tone of self-reproach, "I have been deceived!"  (History of Salt Lake City, pg. 623).


1876 - George Reynolds "test case"
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.

1877 August 29 
Brigham Young dies, never knowing if the law of 1862 was overturned, seeing the completion of the Salt Lake Temple, or knowing if the "social experiment" of the Mormons was actually going to succeed in building a Zion people and place.

1878 Joseph F. Smith sermon
This is the type of instruction that Latter-Day Saints of this day received about plural marriage.  I wouldn't call this typical, because many other topics were discussed; however, this wouldn't be atypical either:

     "The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part - and is good so far as it goes ... But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it."
     "... it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful."
     "I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that"  (Journal of Discourses, Volume 20, page 28-31; July 7, 1878).

1879 (January 6) - Reynolds vs. United States:  98 U.S. 145 
Reynolds' case is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Short answer:  The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862, is constitutional; George Reynolds is guilty.

The Supreme Court went to the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) to determine the scope of influence for government in legislating religious practice and to find a definition of what religious freedom meant in the mind of the framers.  This case was the first challenge to the interpretation of the First Amendment right of religious freedom - they wanted to be sure.

Thomas Jefferson defined the scope of religious freedom thusly:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote the court opinion (there was one dissenting justice - Justice Field - but only on one point of the case for evidence allowed of Amelia Jane Schofield; point number 4):

Coming as this does [the above Jefferson quote] from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.  Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress.  It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control.

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

Upon a careful consideration of the whole case, we are satisfied that no error was committed by the court below.

Judgment affirmed

Above quotes are all from the opinion rendered by the United States Supreme Court.  Because there was not a minority dissenting opinion, exception above noted on one of 6 points in the case, this was as close to a unanimous decision as could be expected.  Every member of the court believed that polygamy could be legislated against and could not be used as a religious defense in court.


1879 - George Q. Cannon publicly responds to the Supreme Court decision

"Our crime has been:  We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide. If George Reynolds is to be punished, let the world know the facts.  Conceal them not under the thin veil of hypocritical pretense.  Let it be published to the four corners of the earth that in this land of liberty, the most blessed and glorious upon which the sun shines, the law is swiftly invoked to punish religion, but justice goes limping and blindfolded in pursuit of crime."

I'm sure the Church was shocked, as is evidenced by the response from George Q. Cannon.  This judgment was not expected.  It was not supposed to happen this way. 

Reference to the above quote -- which are the final words of a pamphlet written by Cannon:  A Review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of George Reynolds vs. The People of the United States, pg. 58; published 1879 by Deseret News Printing and Publishing Establishment.


1880 - Revelation to Wilford Woodruff (Jan. 26) - pieces of it quoted below:

     "The nation is ripened in iniquity and the cup of the wrath of mine indignation is full and I will not stay my hand in judgments upon this nation or the nations of the earth.

     "And I say again, woe unto that nation, or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void.

     "The blood of my servants Joseph and Hyrum and of mine Apostles and Elders which has been shed for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, cries from the ground for vengeance upon the nation which has shed their blood.  But their blood shall speedily be avenged and shall cease to cry unto me, for the hour of God's judgment is fully come and shall be poured out without measure upon the wicked."

--> Reference:  Wilford Woodruff's 1880 Revelation
--> Reference:  LDS Church News (they mention the revelation in passing, but do not quote it). 

"In 1880, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation 'which virtually nailed the flag to the flagpole of plural marriage.'"

Comment:  With revelations like this, it is easy for me to see why the Saints and their leaders would continue to resist the laws of the United States.  They believed that the Lord would fight their cause for them and not allow their religion to be tainted and/or destroyed by the unrighteous gentiles of the same nation that killed the prophet Joseph and his brother Hyrum in Carthage, Illinois.


1881 (January) - Church authorities fulfill instruction from 1880 revelation:

The above revelation from 1880, had specific instructions in it on what the Lord wanted these men to do.  On January 19, 1881, they fulfilled these instructions.  The full prayer offered can be found in the Journal of Wilford Woodruff 7:621-625.

Someday I'll have to get better access to the Journals so I can read this.  For now, I can only accept that it was something that I need to read.  Update:  I read the Woodruff journals (the part in book 7 with the prayer - it's at the very end of the book), and was interested to know if a list of names were included; they were not - well, so much for seeing who the Saints believed their enemies were exactly.  Here are a few pieces of it that I found pertinent (all spelling, captialization, etc., is Wilford Woodruff's):

Now our Father who art in heaven we bear testimony unto thee that from the hour that Moroni gave into the hands of thy servant Joseph the sacred Record from the hill Cumorah wicked and ungodly men sought his life and Continued to persecute him up to the hour of his death and finally shed his Blood and martered him with his Brother Hyram in Carthage Jail for the word of God & Testimony of Jesus Christ.  And the wicked of this Nation have Continued to persecute thy servants from time to time, until the present hour.  The wicked of this Nation have driven thy people from town to town from state to State and finally driven them from the Nation into the wilderness, into these Mountains of Israel.

And now our Enemies are not satisfied because we still live and prosper.  Even Our Nation itself is taking a stand against thy Church and Kingdom and has passed laws forbidding us to obey the Law of the Celestial Patriarchal Order of marriage which thou hast Commanded us to obey.  The blood of one of thy servants has been shed.  Others have been imprisoned because they would not deny thy word.
...
The list of Names are in print & I omit recording them here.

O Lord our God these Classes of Men whether living or dead have made war against Thee and thy kingdom and thine anointed ones.  Some have shed the blood of thy Prophets and Apostles.  Others have Consented unto their death and have persecuted the Saints of God and have driven them from place to Place and finally driven them into these mountains of Israel and barren deserts and many of our Nation their Presidents Governors and judges still seek our destruction and still wish to pass laws to prevent us from Building up thy Kingdom and keeping thy Commandments and from redeeming our dead and performing the work which thous has Commanded us to do and to deprive us of our freedom as men and our rights as Citizens.

Our Father in heaven we Pray unto thee and ask thee in the name of thy son Jesus Christ that thou wilt protect thy Church, thy Kingdom and thy people from the Power of the wicked. O Lord may this Nation not have power to prevent thy Saints from keeping thy Commandments, from building the Temples of our God and redeeming Our dead.

That was a lot of background and history.  There are still important events that I have skipped over - a blog post is only so long.  I may add them later, or create a new post with additional information.

In 1882, Congress put together a bill designed to control, and hopefully limit, the practice of polygamy in Utah.  This bill worked around some of the problems of the 1862 bill and the 1874 bill; namely, it had instructions on enforcement - it finally had teeth.  Also, unlawful cohabitation was defined as "supporting and caring for more than one woman."  After the passage of this bill, unlawful cohabitation would become the main focus of prosecutors in the Utah Territory.

In summary, here are the main points of this law:

• It is an amendment to the 1862 law, not a new law.
• Polygamy (marriage to more than one woman) is a felony:  5 years in prison and/or $500 fine.
• Unlawful cohabitation (living with more than one woman) is a misdemeanor:  6 months in prison and/or $300 fine.
• Polygamists disqualified from jury service, voting, and public or elective office of any kind.
• Children of polygamous families legitimized if born before January 1, 1883.

The law is copied below in its entirety.


The Statutes at Large of the United States of America
From December, 1881, to March, 1883
Volume XXII [22] - reference below, pages 30-33


March 22, 1882
Chapter 47 - An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes.

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section fifty-three hundred and fift-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows, namely:

     Every person who has a husband or wife living who, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract.

     Sec. 2.  That the foregoing provisions shall not affect the prosecution or punishment of any offense already committed against the section amended by the first section of this act.

     Sec. 3.  That if any male person, in a Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

     Sec. 4.  That counts for any or all of the offenses named in sections one and three of this act may be joined in the same information or indictment.

     Sec. 5.  That in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, under any statute of the United States, it shall be sufficient cause of challenge to any person drawn or summoned as a juryman or talesman, first, that he is or has been living in the practice of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman, or that he is or has been guilty of an offense punishable by either of the foregoing sections, or by section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or the act of July first, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, entitled "An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah", or, second, that he believes it right for a man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at the same time, or to live in the practice of cohabiting with more than one woman; and any person appearing or offered as a jurur or talesman, and challenged on either of the foregoing grounds, may be questioned on his oath as to the existence of any such cause of challenge, and other evidence may be introduced bearing upon the question raised by such challenge; and this question shall be tried by the court.  But as to the first ground of challenge before mentioned, the person challenged shall not be bound to answer if he shall say upon his oath that he declines on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate himself; and if he shall answer as to said first ground, his answer shall not be given in evidence in any criminal prosecution against him for any offense named in sections one or three of this act; but if he declines to answer on any ground, he shall be rejected as incompetent.

     Sec. 6.  That the President  is hereby authorized to grant amnesty to such classes of offenders guilty of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, before the passage of this act, on such conditions and under such limitations as he shall think proper; but no such amnesty shall have effect unless the conditions thereof shall be complied with.

     Sec. 7.  That the issue of bigamous or polygamous marriages, known as Mormon marriages, in cases in which such marriages have been solemnized according to the ceremonies of the Mormon sect, in any Territory of the United States, and such issue shall have been born before the first day of January, anno Domini eighteen hundred and eighty-three, are hereby legitimated.

     Sec. 8.  That no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory or other place, or be eligible for election or appointment or to be entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor or emolument in, under, or for any such Territory or place, or under the United States.

     Sec. 9.  That all the registration and election offices of every description in the Territory of Utah are hereby declared vacant, and each and every duty relating to the registration of voters, the conduct of elections, the receiving or rejection of votes, and the canvassing and returning of the same, and the issuing of certificates or other evidence of election in said Territory, shall, until other provision be made by the legislative assembly of said Territory as is hereinafter by this section provided, be performed under the existing laws of the United States and of said Territory by proper persons, who shall be appointed to execute such offices and perform such duties by a board of five persons, to be appointed by the President [of the United States], by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of one political party; and a majority of whom shall be a quorum.  The members of said board so appointed by the President shall each receive a salary at the rate of three thousand dollars per annum, and shall continue in office until the legislative assembly of said Territory shall make provision for filling said offices as herein authorized.  The Secretary of the Territory shall be the secretary of said board, and keep a journal of its proceedings, and attest the action of said board under this section.  The canvass and return of all the votes at elections in said Territory for members of the legislative assembly thereof shall also be returned to said board, which shall canvass all such returns and issue certificates of election to those persons who, being eligible for such election, shall appear to have been lawfully elected, which certificates shall be the only evidence of the right of such persons to sit in such assembly:  Provided, That said board of five persons shall not exclude any person otherwise eligible to vote from the polls on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or polygamy nor shall they refuse to count any such vote on account of the opinion of the person casting it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy; but each house of such assembly, after its organization, shall have power to decide upon the elections and qualifications of its members.  And at, or after the first meeting of said legislative assembly whose members shall have been elected and returned according to the provisions of this act, said legislative assembly may make such laws, conformable to the organic act of said Territory and not inconsistent with the other laws of the United States, as it shall deem proper concerning the filling of the offices in said Territory declared vacant by this act.

APPROVED, March 22, 1882

Laws Against Polygamy - 1862 (Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act)

This is an off-shoot from the Reed Smoot hearing testimonies that I have been churning through.  Some of the conversations in the hearing deal with the laws against polygamy enacted by the United States Congress.  So, I wanted to have these readily available for review.

Other posts in this series:

• Edmunds Act of 1882
• Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887
• Manifesto of 1890
• Supreme Court Cases (1878-1893)

Some History and Backgound to this Bill:

There is some historical evidence that Joseph Smith knew about the doctrine of plural marriage prior to its acknowledgment and being recorded in 1843.  Joseph began the practice of polygamy around 1835 (when he married Fanny Alger plurally), which would be a little after the time when he was going through the Bible and retranslating it, and would put the Saints in both Kirtland, Ohio and Missouri - not Nauvoo, Illinois.  This time frame also matches with the heading in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants which says that the prophet knew of this doctrine since 1831 (reference:  LDS D&C Section 132).  However, this section was not officially added to the D&C until 1876, by Brigham Young.  Prior to this time, the section known to the Community of Christ Church today as Section 111 was included (reference:  CofC D&C Section 111) as the scripture on marriage.

After the Mormons had made their way to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the practice of polygamy continued, but it was not broadcast.  However, that all changed in Salt Lake on August 29, 1852, when Apostle Orson Pratt gave a talk entitled "Celestial Marriage," which announced officially to the country that the Mormons were practicing polygamy (Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pg. 53 - here).  This declaration was done with the approval of Brigham Young.  At this time, there was no longer the hush and whisper method of containing this practice.  It was now freely and openly admitted, logically backed up with scriptures to justify its practice as a religious institution, and practiced openly in the Territory.

In 1856, the Republican party selected as its national platform the abolishment of the "twin relics of barbarism - polygamy and slavery."  This was the platform that Abraham Lincoln ran on, and it shows the concern of the politicians and the citizens of the country to this growing problem in Utah.

Mormons in the State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) were desperately trying to become a State in the Union so that they could officially legalize polygamy in the State.  It was however, very clear, that one of the main reasons their petitions for statehood were rejected by Congress was due to the practice of polygamy - because it undermined the concept of marriage, an institution that is necessary for a free society.

Many in Washington considered the practice of polygamy and refusal of Brigham Young to deal with it as a rebellion against the Government of the United States.  Because of this, the "Mormon Rebellion" had to be stopped, and military plans were drawn up.  At the urging of many Washington politicians in Buchanan's administration, President James Buchanan sent out troops to replace Brigham Young as the Territorial governor.  The Federal Government in Washingon, D.C., was going to force the hand of the Mormons to obey and honor the correct form of government.  Here is the reaction of Brigham (New York Times article: November 19, 1857) when he was informed that an army was on its way to Utah. 

On April 6, 1858, President Buchanan, issued a proclamation "Respecting the Rebellion and Mormon Troubles in the Territory of Utah." This was in response to Brigham Young's reaction to the troops headed to Utah, and the burning of supply wagons for the army by Mormon raiders.  The Mormons were labeled as terrorists and subversive. They were told that they were given every opportunity to live within the government of a free nation, but refused and rebelled against it.  Every appointed official in Utah could not accomplish their job for fear of retribution and possibly assassination by the commnity. (United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 11, pages 796-798).

     "The great mass of those settlers [pioneers in Utah], acting under the influence of leaders to whom they seem to have surrendered their judgment, refuse to be controlled by any other authority ... the hatred of that misguided people for the just and legal authority of the government had become so intense that they resolved to measure their military strength with that of the Union ... While the troops of the United States were on their march, a train of baggage-wagons, which happened to be unprotected, was attacked and destroyed by a portion of the Mormon forces, and the provisions and stores with which the train was laden were wantonly burnt ... In short, their present attitude is one of decided and unreserved enmity to the United States and to all their loyal citizens.

     "Fellow-citizens of Utah ! this is rebellion against the government to which you owe allegiance.  It is levying war against the United States, and involves you in the guilt of treason ... it is mere madness to suppose that, with your limited resources, you can successfully resist the force of this great and powerful nation ... Do not decieve yourselves nor try to mislead others by propagating the idea that this is a crusade against your religion ... [I offer] to the inhabitants of Utah, who shall submit to the laws, a free pardon for the seditions and treasons heretofore by them committed."

From the "History of Salt Lake City" comes this quote:

"Burning the supplies of an army of the United States, sent by the Government to put down an incipient rebellion, was declared to be an extraordinary overt act of actual war, while the proclamation of Governor Young was considered as a veritable declaration of war as from an independent power.  A terrible wrath was aroused against the Mormon Utah."

Brigham Young's words on to U.S. Captain Van Vliet on this occasion give pause:

"We are aware that such will be the case; but when those troops arive they will find Utah a desert.  Every house will be burned to the ground, every tree cut down and every field left waste.  We have three years' provisions on hand, which we will 'cache,' and then take to the mountains and bid defiance to all the powers of the government"  (History of Salt Lake City, pg. 175 - both quotes).

The reconstituted Nauvoo Legion, led by Major Lot Smith, did delay the approach of the army until June 1858, by capturing and buring supply caravans destined for the main body of the army.  The entire series of events with references can be found at wikipedia.org under Utah War.  This military move was known later as "Buchanan's blunder."  The Mormon leaders and people believed that the Federal Government was finally willing, and able, to carry out plans to completely destroy them, where they had failed before in Missouri and Illinois.  The Salt Lake Temple foundations were buried to hide it from the army (a farmer's field was placed over the top of it for a disguise).  In the end, the army moved in, Camp Floyd was created for the housing of the troops (on the western side of Utah Lake), and after approximately a year, the military left and returned back East.

This military intervention, and many discussions with Mormon leaders both in Utah and Washington D.C., did nothing to disuade them from the practice of polygamy.

That's the background, now the law.

First up is what is known as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - sponsored by Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont.  It was introduced to the House of Representatives in the spring of 1860, where it passed.  It was sent over to the Senate, but did not make it out before Congress adjourned.  With the start of the 36th Congress in 1862, the Southern States were not represented, and this led to an easier passage of the bill; by a vote of 37 to 2, it passed the Senate.

This bill was signed into law on July 1, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln.  Because of the timing of the bill (rebellion of the South causing the Civil War), distance of the Mormons from everyone else (railroads didn't connect in Utah until 1869), and the general attitude of "let sleeping dogs lie," this law was not enforced at all.  It was a bill created without teeth, and became a law that was ignored by the Mormons.  However, Brigham Young was still concerned when he learned of its passage, so he wanted to know the intentions of President Lincoln in relation to this bill.

"When Brigham Young sent Deseret News assistant editor T.B.H. Stenhouse to Washington, D.C., to ascertain Lincoln's plans for the Mormons, the president told him:

'Stenhouse, when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois there was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away.  Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down.  It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it.  That's what I intend to do with the Mormons.  You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.'"   (Church History in the Fullness of Times, pg. 383).

That is exactly what happened.  This law was not enforced.  No officers were appointed to enforce the law and no funds for enforcement were allotted.

I find it interesting that they used the phrases "State of Deseret" and "spiritual marriage" in the text of the bill itself.  That tells me that they did understand, at least a little, what was going on out in the desert.  It is a little confusing why they would want to label and punish polygamy as the crime of bigamy because they are two different crimes.  Mormons knew they weren't practicing bigamy (marrying another spouse without the first one knowing), they were practicing polygamy where everything was above board.

Here's my quick and dirty summary of the law (which has 3 sections):

Section 1:  Defines the marriage of more than one living woman to a man (or living man to a woman) as bigamy and punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment of up to 5 years.

Section 2:  Disincorporates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to the fact that this corporation helped establish and shield the polygamous practices occurring in the Territory.  Also any other laws or acts passed by the legislature of the so-called State of Deseret (Territory of Utah) which supported polygamy are automatically annulled.

Section 3:  No religious corporation may own more that $50,000 worth of real estate in a Territory of the United States.  Any real estate owned by such corporations that come in conflict with this law are forfeited and escheat to the United States.

Below is quoted the law in its entirety - it's actually short compared to some laws I've read.


The Statutes at Large, Treaties, and Proclamations, of the United States of America
From December 5, 1859, to March 3, 1863
Volume XII [12] - reference below, pages 501-502

July 1, 1862
Chapter CXXVI [126] - An Act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other Places, and disapproving and annulling certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of Territory of Utah.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years:  Provided, nevertheless, That this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by the sentence or decree of a competent court on the ground of the nullity of the marriage contract.
    
     Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely: "An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," passed February eight, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-one, and adopted, reenacted, and made valid by the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah by an act passed January nineteen, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, entitled "An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication, and distribution," and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled:  Provided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right or property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right "to worship God according to the dictates of conscience," but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.
    
     Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, That is shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire of hold real estate in any Territory of the United States during the existence of the territorial government of a greater value than fifty thousand dollars; and all real estate acquired or held by any such corporation or association contrary to the provisions of this act shall be forfeted and escheat to the United States:  Provided, That existing vested rights in real estate shall not be impaired by the provisions of this section.

APPROVED, July 1, 1862

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - Ogden Hiles

March 12, 1904


Ogden Hiles is a resident of Salt Lake and has been for the past 17 or 18 years (back to about 1886).  He moved to Utah to accept an appointment as assistant United States attorney for the Territory of Utah.  He continued in this position for about 3 and a half years.  In 1895, he was elected as one of the judges of the third judicial district court and served 5 years there.  Currently he practices law in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Tayler wants information on what Judge Hiles did during his time as an attorney for the Territory of Utah.

Mr. Hiles.  From 1886 to 1889, I was in the United States attorney's office as assistant.  And during what were called the polygamy prosecutions I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under the Edmunds law and the Edmunds-Tucker law than any other officer.  My duties called me from Ogden to Salt Lake, to Provo and to Beaver, in all parts of the Territory; and, as I say, I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under those laws than any other officer.  I examined hundreds and I may say thousands of witnesses during that time.
...
Mr. Hiles.  At that time [1886], under orders from the Attorney-General's office here in Washington, we were directed to proceed and prosecute offenders against these laws with as much vigor as we could, and we did proceed, commencing in the forepart of 1886.  There had been some prosecutions in 1885.  We had not proceeded far before it was made very clear as a general fact - it was already pretty well known in the community - that the people of Utah were living under a theocracy, under a government of priests.  This state or condition was disclosed by the examination of witnesses before the grand juries by the examination of jurors touching their qualification to sit as jurors in polygamy cases, as they were called.
Mr. Tayler.  Now tell us definitely what you mean by that - what answers were given?
Mr. Hiles.  Invariably, if we would ask a Mormon whether he would obey the laws of the United States, or the laws of the church, he would say that he would obey the law of the church.  As stated by Mr. Critchlow yesterday, in every case - or in most every case - the judge would offer the defendant who was convicted the clemency of suspension of judgment if he would in future obey the law.  He would say no.  "Why not?"  "Well," he would say, "I choose to obey the law of God rather than man-made laws."  If we suggested that the laws of the Republic were mild and that any lady or gentleman of standing might live under them without coming in hostility to them, he would say it made no difference.  If we asked him what the law of God was, he said it was that which was revealed to them in their Doctrine & Covenants and in the Bible, and was expounded to them by the authorities - that is to say, the authorities of the church ... It was regarded by the Mormons and by the priesthood as a badge of apostasy to agree to obey the law.  I do not know that anyone was disfellowshipped for it, but it was considered an act of apostasy to agree to obey the law.

Commentary:  This testimony is similar to that given by Mr. Critchlow with a few pieces of history that cast more light on this time in history.  Apparently the church had instructed its members to live only the law of God because the laws of man were inferior.  Additionally, if you agreed to live man's laws, you were immediately in a state of apostasy - possibly subject to disfellowship or excommunication.  The only way so many people that were prosecuted would say things like this is if they really believed it - and that comes from their ecclesiastical leaders.


He goes on to say that after the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act that his court took advantage of the added offense of unlawful cohabitation or adultery.  "We immediately took advantage of that in every case where we could bring a case of adultery."  Because of this there was a lot of pressure upon the people of the Territory.  These prosecutions were done against many poor people; people would could not pay fines.  At this time "they commenced, and many of them would promise to obey the law, and did promise to obey the law, and judgment was suspended in every instance."

Mr. Hiles.  After, in 1889, there was a more evident disposition on the part of the Mormon people to obey the law, and, as has been said, the people became restive under the continuous hammering of the Government to enforce the law ... Mormons and Gentiles at that time began to meet and discuss the situation.  Before that they would not discuss the matter at all of the differences between Gentile and Mormon.
     In 1890 it was concluded that something would be done by the church toward an amelioration of these conditions, and upon that the Government seemed to relax its prosecution.  There were prosecutions, however, all the way through 1890 up to the issuance of the manifesto in 1890, but there was some relaxation of the pressure of the law officers upon the people.  There was a general disposition among all kinds of people to do something that would amerliorate these conditions, because it was a hardship upon the Mormon people.
...
     I believe for a time there was an observance of [the manifesto of 1890], I do not know for how long; but gradually since statehood, as it is called, there has been a recurrence of those old conditions.  Polygamous cohabitation has become more flagrant.  We see continually coming on a new crop of polygamous children, and it seems to a great many people ... with whom I talk that they are getting back to old polygamous conditions and that they are not obeying the law of the State of Utah in that respect.
     After the admission of Utah as a State, the polygamists took the position that there was no inhibition in the constitution of the State of Utah against polygamous cohabitation; that the inhibition was against polygamy merely, and that the framers of the constitution, having put in an interdiction a against polygamous marriages, new marriages, having omitted to say anything about polygamous cohabitation or unlawful cohabitation and those other offenses that were mentioned in the Edmunds law, that therefore there was no offense in Utah such as unlawful cohabitation and adultery.  When I was judge a case come up before upon a habeas corpus in which counsel took that position, and I decided that the law was constitutional.

Commentary:  That was a quick history review, and I think was fairly well done.

Senator Hopkins.  Now, Judge, is it the practice of the church at each election, local and general, in the State to take part and select some for election and others for defeat?
Mr. Hiles.  No; not as a rule.  It is only occasionally.  They do not take up each man on the ticket and say whether he shall be elected or shall not be elected, but if they do take up a man and say that he shall be elected, he will be elected.
Senator Hopkins.  Is it any more than where a good Methodist is running, other good Methodist brothers think he is a little better by reason of that, and give him their vote?  Or do they exert a wider and more potential influence in elections?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; their influence is more effectual because it is an organization which controls large masses of men and women.  It is an organization which is distinct from the Government of the United States and the government of the State of Utah, and exercises political and secular control over the affairs of the people.

And that is the end of the direct-examination of Judge Hiles.  Actually, that was a whole lot shorter than I expected.

Mr. Van Cott does the cross-examination of Judge Hiles and sarts out his questioning with with asking for a specific example of where the Mormon Church has interfered in politics in the State of Utah within the last 5 years.

Mr. Hiles.  Well, the election of Senator Smoot is one.  Smoot would not have been elected to the United States Senate if he had not been approved by the authorities of the Mormon Church.
Mr. Van Cott.  Right there, Judge, before you go on, do you mean by that if Mr. Smoot had been a lay member in the church and had run for United States Senator he would not have been elected, or do you mean if he were an apostle and did not get a leave of absence or consent, that then he would have been defeated?
Mr. Hiles.  I mean that Mr. Smoot would never have been elected United States Senator unless he had been an apostle and had received their consent and their indorsement.  When Mr. Smoot's candidacy was announced and it was known that he had the consent of the church, it was then known that he would become Senator of the United States.
Mr. Van Cott.  But Mr. Smoot was a candidate for Senator, was he not, before he became an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; a perfunctory candidate.
Mr. Van Cott.  A perfunctory candidate?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.  He was not seriously considered until he became an apostle and after his candidacy, subsequent to his apostolate.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean that his standing in the Republican party of the State was such that he was not seriously considered until they learned that the church was for him?
Mr. Hiles.  His standing in any party - the Republican party, the Mormon party, or any party.  I mean he had no standing as a candidate for the United States Senate, and when it was known that he was a candidate, then everybody said, "Why, that is the end of it.  That settles it."
Mr. Van Cott.  And your opinion is, Judge, that he would not have been selected for United States Senator if he had not been an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  He would not.
Mr. Van Cott.  And do you mean by that that no Mormon Republican would be selected for United States Senator unless he was an apostle, or do you not go to that extent?
Mr. Hiles.  Oh, no; a Mormon may become a United States Senator without being an apostle, but I say that in Smoot's case he would not have been unless he was an apostle.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  For instance, Judge, name one candidate for the United States Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Republican politics who you consider more prominent for the position than Mr. Smoot.
Mr. Hiles.  Why, Governor Wells.
...
Senator Hopkins.  The evidence, as I have undertsood it, is that Mr. Smoot has always acted with the Republican party out there and that his influence has been strong with that party and that he favored the election of men who belonged to that political faith.
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; I think that is the history of it.
...
Senator Hopkins.  Is it or is it not a fact that Mr. Smoot has been a consistent, straightforward Republican all his mature life, or ever since he took any part in politics?
Mr. Hiles.  Well, I have heard so.
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you know anything to the contrary?
Mr. Hiles.  I know nothing to the contrary.

Commentary:  His opinion was stated, and it was then called into question by Mr. Van Cott and Senator Hopkins.  From this reading, it would appear that Mr. Hiles is rather negative toward Reed Smoot and that his testimony (opinion) cannot be trusted in this specific matter.  The previous testimony seemed fair and knowledgeable when he talked about the prosecutions.

Mr. Van Cott.  What are your means of knowledge that he would not have been elected if he had not been one of the twelve apostles?
Mr. Hiles.  Because there are men in politics in Utah who have much more influence simply as politicians than he has and whom the people would prefer.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean by that that his position in the party has been such that he had no reasonable claim to such a promotion?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; no reasonable claim to such a promotion, and if he had he could not obtain it, in my judgment.  Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
Senator Hopkins.  You are giving it as your opinion.  Have you anything which you predicate that, which you can give this committee, which will enable us to judge from those facts?
Mr. Hiles.  It is only from the general talk of men in the Republican party and in the Democratic party.

Commentary:  He states this as opinion and not fact and is questioned on that by Senator Hopkins and cannot provide any facts that the committee can use.  This again serves to qualify his testimony on this matter as opinion only.


At this point Judge Hiles makes a flat out mistake.  He's already gone off on his opinion of Senator Smoot's election and standing in the Republican party of Utah.  I kind of feel sorry for him because the hole he's digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and consequently his believability or relevancy to this committee, are greatly diminished.  He's being asked by Mr. Van Cott about the Senators that have been from Utah.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, the next Senator was J.L. Rawlins?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  He is not a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; he is a Mormon.
Mr. Van Cott.  Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir ... I have heard Mr. Rawlins say he was not a Mormon.  He was baptized a Mormon.  He was reared among them.  His father was a bishop - his father was Bishop Rawlins.
Mr. Van Cott.  Becaues he was born of Mormon parentage and because his father was a Mormon, do you understand that that makes him a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Pretty close.
Mr. Van Cott.  Pretty close?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  So that if persons leave the church and if they happen to be of Mormon parentage, in your opinion they are pretty close to being Mormons.  Is that right?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is right.  Is all the testimony you have given along the line on which you have testified and do you speak with just as much knowledge on other matters as this, namely, that Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  He is a Mormon under the qualifications I have named; yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Under the qualifications you have named?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, he is pretty close to being a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  And all your other testimony is just along that same line; just as close?
Mr. Hiles.  No; I do not qualify my other testimony as I qualify that.  I know what I am talking about sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You do know that?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir; I know -

Commentary:  I have a suggestion:  Think before you open your mouth.  On Sunday, March 13, 1904, a letter is received by the committee from Mr. Rawlins on this subject to be read stating that he is, in fact, not a Mormon (see New York Times article on this subject here).  This is just one more piece of the puzzle here that throws doubt on all of the testimony of Judge Hiles - even though I thought his opening statements were very well done.  To close off this section he says:  "I know what I am talking about sir."  Doh!  That just sealed his testimony with a stamp of arrogancy.  I must say I'm not sure the cross-examiner had anything to do with walking the Judge into these mistakes; rather, it was more of the Judge making "unforced errors."


Mr. Van Cott asks him how he knows that polygamy and/or unlawful cohabitation have increased after 1890, and he wants the Judge to state specific instances if he knows of them.

Mr. Hiles.  I know one instance, but I do not want to mention his name, because he is a friend of mine, although he is a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott.  We will excuse you from mentioning his name.
Mr. Hiles.  That is to say, I have received acts of kindness from him, and I would not say anything that might be to his injury.

Commentary:  Well ok now.  He prosecuted case after case after case for law-breaking Mormon polygamists - with vigor.  However, when it comes down to turning one in that is his friend and has been nice to him, he won't do it.  He only wants to have prosecuted those people that he doesn't know.  I find that very "human" of him and at the same time duplicitous and hypocritical.


One interesting side not here is that there was discussion before the end of the day where Mr. Tayler was anxious to have 8 men who have been subpoenaed appear - but they have not.  Because of this there are no more witnesses currently for the protestants and thus there is about one month of time taken off from the committee meetings.  I assume that two of the men he is speaking of are M. F. Cowley and John W. Taylor - these two never do show up in Washington, they avoid the committee completely by not allowing themselves to be subpoenaed.  I also assume the others he mentions would be Marriner W. Merrill (cannot come for health reasons), George Teasdale (cannot come for health reasons), and John Henry Smith (cannot come for health reasons; he does however, make it out eventually).


The committee adjourned at 4:25 PM.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - E.B. Critchlow, part 4

March 12, 1904


I wanted 3 parts, but I had to make a fourth for this testimony.

This part of the cross-examination seems to be to be extremely "scatter-brained" and unimportant at the first -for that reason, I do not quote much of the opening testimony from this.  After reading the testimony and questions from Mr. Tayler and Mr. Worthington and even the cross-examination from yesterday by Mr. Van Cott, I'm left to wonder if he had any direction at all for these questions.  Did Mr. Van Cott stay up late Friday night, because many of these questions seemed irrelevant to me, almost as if he was unprepared for this session.  A few of the Senators do step in and take over the questioning from time to time; at least giving the meeting some stability.  When they do this, the questioning becomes pertinent, relevant, and interesting.

Some of the questions here were confusing, and I didn't blame the witness when he responded with an answer in the form of a question, like this:  "It's difficult for me to get the scope of your question ..."

With all of that in mind, and knowing that I'm going to avoid the confusing questions completely, I'll dive into this Saturday session where they start out talking about the laws passed to prohibit the practice of polygamy.

Mr. Van Cott.  So that when those acts were passed, whether it was in 1882 or 1887, the difference between unlawful cohabitation and polygamy was clearly understood by the people of Utah?
Mr. Critchlow.  It ought to have been clearly understood.  It was the most vital question we had there in Utah.

Commentary:  Finally, a quotable question and response.  He's speaking of the laws enacted to do away with polygamy:  The Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.  The understanding of these laws and what they meant and did for the State of Utah and the people living there was "the most vital question" Utah had known up to that point.  I think every resident of the State would be familiar with that.


Mr. Van Cott finally comes around to something interesting.  After going through a whole lot of dialog where he has Mr. Critchlow state his opinions on knowledge of people involved in the State, those that were in the Constitutional Convention, the laws enacted, etc., he wants to have 3 pages put in the record from the Constitutional Convention.  He is asked why by Senator Hopkins, and this is his response:

Mr. Van Cott.  The purpose of the offer is to show that when the attention of the constitutional convention was called to the enabling act, namely, prohibiting forever the celebration of plural marriages, the convention had before it a condition that had existed in Utah, namely, that they had been punishing unlawful cohabitation and polygamy; that when they came to the adoption of the constitution it was no oversight in omitting the punishment of unlawful cohabitation from the constitution; that their attention was invited to it, and the expressly omitted legislation on the subject of unlawful cohabitation, but instead legislated against polygamy.
Mr. Tayler.  There is no doubt there was a law passed by the State forbidding unlawful cohabitation.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is a different thing, Mr. Tayler.

Commentary:  That's interesting, especially in light of the previous comments made by Mr. Critchlow.  Most people in the State of Utah thought unlawful cohabitation was more offensive than the act of polygamy itself; yet, the leading men of the State did not legislate against this in the State constitution.  Mr. Tayler immediately recognizes the importance of this statement and must counter it - only to be told, "that is a different thing."


In the record on pages 642-656 is a stenographic record of the speeches of the members of the Constitutional Convention for Utah talking about this very subject brought up by Mr. Van Cott.

From page 554 of the committee record, this is testimony from Mr. Critchlow about the consitutional convention in Utah:

Mr. Critchlow.  Quite an effort was made in the constitutional convention, as appears in the reports and as was a matter of common knowledge there in the community at that time, to have the distinct pledge as to unlawful cohabitation put into the constitution - I mean privately, among the members, as we all understood, Mr. Varian, Mr. Goodwin, and others; but various reasons were given why they should not go beyond the exact terms of the pledge, if you call it a pledge, or the provision which was exacted from the new State by the enabling act which had just passed Congress.

He then runs down through the list of people that talked in the convention to help identify them, their political leanings and whether they were Mormon or not:

• Mr. Varian:  Former district attorney.  Mr. Critchlow worked for him.  Prosecuted polygamy vigorously.
• Mr. Maloney:  Lawyer from Ogden, gentile and Democrat.
• Mr. Richards:  F. S. Richards who is present at the committee hearings.  Mormon and Democrat.
• Mr. Thurman:  Mormon lawyer, and a polygamist.
• Mr. Dave Evans:  Non-Mormon, former assistant U.S. attorney.
• Mr. James:  Non-Mormon.
• Mr. Squires:  Non-Mormon.
• Mr. Kerr:  Mormon, polygamist, head of agricultural college in Logan, Utah.
• Mr. Goodwin:  Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune (anti-Mormon newspaper).
• B.H. Roberts:  Mormon, polygamist.
• Mr. Van Horne:  Judge of the court of first instance at Cairo, Egypt.

Mr. Van Cott then wishes to get Mr. Critchlow to admit point-blank, that there is no stipulation in the enabling act of Utah (to allow them to become a State) for the prohibition of unlawful cohabitation, which Mr. Critchlow is reluctant to admit to.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, in the enabling act for Utah there was no provision against unlawful cohabitation, was there, Mr. Critchlow?  Would you like to look at the book to refresh your recollection?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think there is.
Mr. Van Cott.  Will you find it, please?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think that the Congress of the United States when they passed the act saying that "polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited," meant to prohibit the marriage ceremony, which was a comparatively immaterial thing, and the actual living in the state of polygamy.  That has always been my contention about it.  Of course, I am no more capable of judging of that than is anyone else.
Mr. Van Cott.  No one in the constitutional convention took that view of it, did he?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not know whether they did or not.  They were very tender in treating that subject; very tender.
Mr. Van Cott.  The provision in the enabling act is this:

First.  That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever by molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship:  Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  Is there anything in the enabling act bearing on the question, except what I have read?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not to my recollection.

Commentary:  Ok, well, there it is.  The United States Congress mentioned only the crime of polygamy or plural marriage as being a requirement for the Constitution of Utah.  Nothing was said about a statement of unlawful cohabitation being in the document.


Mr. Van Cott then discusses the candidacy of Mr. Smoot.  He was mentioned as a possible senatorial candidate back in 1898.  Therefore, by the time his candidacy became a reality, it was not a surprise to anyone.  One interesting thing mentioned here is that E.B. Critchlow put his "hat in the ring" to become a Senator for the State, but was never an extremely viable candidate against Mr. Smoot.

In the State Republican Convention of 1902, Mr. Critchlow was a member.

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, it was well known at that time that [Mr.] Smoot was a candidate for United States Senator, was it not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  I will show you the paper if you not recollect; but did you move to make unanimous the nomination of those senators and representatives who were for Mr. Smoot?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  You did?
Mr. Critchlow.  I did.  That might be misunderstood, and I think I ought to be allowed to explain.
The Chairman.  We have your answer, and you may explain it if you want.
Mr. Critchlow.  I fought them as hard as I knew how.  I fought every man who I thought would vote for Mr. Smoot if he went to the senate.  There was quite a good deal of feeling, and it was rather a three-cornered fight.  I was there in the interest of Mr. George Sutherland, attempting to forward his hopes, and when we were beaten, as a mere matter of courtesy, in order to win as much as possible for future fights, or any other reason you please, I moved to make it unamimous.  That was all there was to it.  They had us beaten, and I thought they might as well have it unanimous.
Mr. Van Cott.  You knew that meant Reed Smoot for United States Senator if the Republican party won?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.

Commentary:  So, he heled to get Reed Smoot elected to the Senate, but the protested that election vigorously.  Yes, there is naturally a bit of a misunderstanding here.  His explanation is understood by me as him looking to the future and conceding the present.


Mr. Van Cott then asks Mr. Critchlow about his personal feelings of him being elected.

Mr. Van Cott.  As defining your mental attitude at this time, is not this correct?  If Mr. Smoot were a non-Mormon at the present time, he would be entirely unobjectionable as United States Senator?
Mr. Critchlow.  I may say even more than that.  If he were not a member of the presidency and the apostolate, he would be unobjectionable to me as a member of the United States Senate.
Mr. Van Cott.  If he were a member of the church, but not of the general authorities?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not of the general authorities.  That is a better way to put it, perhaps.
Mr. Van Cott.  It is because he is one of the general authorities?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You knew that when you moved to make unanimous the nominations of senators and representatives?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.

Commentary:  I guess if the aim of the cross-examination is to show a possible duplicity in thought, this is one way to do it (along with the others already shown: voting for, traveling with, not prosecuting or admonishing known polygamists, etc.).  In this instance he forwarded the cause of putting Reed Smoot in the Senate.  I presume that Mr. Critchlow is a tad miffed right now with this line of questioning.  He had to know something like this would be coming.  He's a very credible witness, so the defense has to find a way to put some chinks in his armor.  I think they're doing a good job.


Senator Hopkins jumps in to ask a few questions of the witness.

Senator Hopkins.  Do you say that the Mormon Church has no more influence over Senator Smoot now than it would have if he were United States Senator without holding the position he does in the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not know that I can answer that question yes or no.  What I meant to say is this:  Given any individual lay member of the Mormon Church, and the leaders of the church gave to him a command to obey certain counsel, that thus and so is the will of the Lord, and we want you to do it, that man must do it or he must get out of the church.
     I would say that would be the attitude of a member of the quorum of the apostles and first presidency.  If the president or the quorum of the apostles said to a member thus and so you must do, he must do it or get out of the quorum of apostles.  What I say that they do not have the control over the people as a mass I mean to say this:  That they cannot go, nor so far as I have observed or ever heard do they ever go, out in the community and say to the people as a mass so and so much be done.
     Their orders, and behests, and counsel are given to individuals; and in respect of the control of the people in political affairs, they never do say, and indeed it would be subversive of the very object of their control if they did, to the Mormons as a mass, "You become Republicans," or "You vote the Democratic ticket this year."  That would be subversive of the very element of control which is valuable to them.  There are certain persons in the Mormon Church, in a community, to whom they may say, "I want you to see that So-and-so votes this ticket" or "the other ticket," and enough are set apart or controlled in that way from thie floating contingent to make the thing go anyway they please.
Senator Hopkins.  Now, is Senator Smoot any more under the control of the Mormon Church in the discharge of his duties as United States Senator than he would be if he were simply a lay member of that church, holding no office whatever in the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  That I am unable to say except in this way:  He would have to obey the members of his quorum or his particular ruling file leaders in any particular; and, viewing it in that sense, any good member of the Mormon Church is just as much under the control of the president of the church, of course, as is the quorum, and if possible it might be even more so, because of the difference in elevation between the president and subordinate member.
Senator Hopkins.  In other words, he has more to lose now if he should disobey the church than if he were a lay member?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hopkins.  That is, he has his ecclesiastical position to lose, in addition to the good will of the church, a position he could not lose if he were simply a member, because he would not hold it.
Mr. Critchlow.  True; but if I might be permitted to add just one observation there, from the history of the church and its practical operations we know that the president of the church and the quorum of apostles are always one, absolutely one, in unison and in harmony upon any particular question, or if one gets out of harmony, as Moses Thatcher did, he gets out of the quorum of apostles.

Commentary:  That is, in a nutshell, how Mr. Critchlow views the power the presidency of the church and the quorum of 12 apostles hold over the members of the church.  He considers that Reed Smoot is now, more than ever, under the control of the quorum, and as such must be responsible for their counsel and direction.

Mr. Van Cott.  If any Mormon should be a United States Senator, he could be charged with being subject to the will and dictates of the church absolutely just the same as Mr. Smoot is in this case?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir.  If he is a member of the quorum the will and the practices and the control of the church are his will, his control.  His views are absolutely molded into harmony with those of the head of the church, whereas if he does not belong to that quorum, then it cannot so be said.  That is what I am trying to enforce.

Commentary:  So there's the summation of his feelings on the matter.


Senator Overman has a book called, Orson Pratt's Works, and from page 41, he reads (he states that the book was just handed to him this morning) and asks, "I want to know if that is their teaching today":

"The kingdom of God is an order of government established by divine authority.  It is the only legal government that can exist in any part of the universe.  All other governments are illegal and unauthorized.  God, having made all beings and worlds, has the supreme right to govern them by His own laws, and by officers of His own appointment.  Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own making, and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God."

In response to this reading, here is what Mr. Critchlow says:

Mr. Critchlow.  It undoubted is, if the Senator please.  It is a theocracy, a hierarchy, a government of priests, and the highest priest must necessarily govern, and that may be illustrated and enforced by almost every issue of the Deseret News, in which the sermons of their presidents, and seventies, and so on, are published every week and have been for ten years past.  That is true of current volumes and the volumes of former years.

The committee recesses from 12:50 PM to 2:00 PM.

Mr. Van Cott.  I believe you have already stated that you thought that Wilford Woodruff was an honest, conscientious man?
Mr. Critchlow.  He was so regarded by the non-Mormon community as being such a man.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you regard [John Henry Smith] as a truthful man?
Mr. Critchlow.  In anything where his church is not involved I would.
Mr. Van Cott.  Where his church is not involved?
Mr. Critchlow.  I regard him as beinglike any of the rest of them.
Mr. Van Cott.  Well, how is that?
Mr. Critchlow.  Making statements that are not true as to matters of fact as respects their practices.

Commentary:  So Mormons are truthful, as long as they don't speak about their church practices, because it is possible they will then lie.


While Mr. Van Cott is having Mr. Critchlow investigate a record, Mr. Tayler speaks up:

"Mr. Chairman, while the witness is looking at that, I want to say just a word, in justice to myself, but not in reference to this question or this line.  Many things have been asked that I thought were not relevant or in any way competent.  I have not objected, because I shall not object to any question that is asked this witness.  If the committee should feel that the examination is going along lines that are not profitable, I want the committee to interpose, because we do not want to be accused of attempting to narrow the inquiry."

Commentary:  Mr. Tayler has been particularly pleased with the questions given by Mr. Van Cott either.  I guess I can say I'm not surprised at all.


In 1895, B.H. Roberts ran a campaign against the wishes of the church, much like the campaign that Moses Thatcher ran.  In a like manner, B.H. Roberts refused to sign the political manifesto just as Moses Thatcher refused to sign it.  The church opposed Mr. Robert's candidacy, and he was eventually defeated.  During this time Mr. Roberts was out of harmony with his brethren in the quorums; however, he did repent of this problem.  Mr. Critchlow is asked how he knows that Roberts "repented."

Mr. Critchlow.  In the sermons of the apostles and leaders of the church explaining this manifesto matter, that he was for some six weeks prayed with and labored with by the apostles, and finally he stated that he had a vision in which a number of his dead and gone ancestors came to him and he saw them in a state of -
Mr. Van Cott.  Coma?
Mr. Critchlow.  No; he saw them lost and in perdition because of the fact that he could not go into the temple and be baptized to save their souls; and for the sake of his dead ancestors, and in order that he might enjoy the privileges of the church and be baptized for them, he put himself in harmony with the apostles of the church.

Mr. Critchlow is asked to name the members of the "supervising committee of elders" to help with legislation in the first legislative session of 1896.  He names six men:  Charles W. Penrose, W.W. Riter, James Sharp, William H. King, F.S. Richards [attorney at the committee hearing], and Joseph M. Tanner.

Mr. Van Cott.  How do you know the church appointed those men to supervise legislation?
Mr. Critchlow.  By the admissions made by George Q. Cannon and by Heber J. Grant and by certain of the members of the committee in public interviews, which were had with them directly after the charge was made, which was in April, 1896.
Mr. Van Cott.  And in what papers were those interviews reported?
Mr. Critchlow.  They were reported in the Sale Lake Herald, at that time edited by Brigham H. Roberts; in the Salt Lake Tribune, and I think the interviews with George Q. Cannon and Heber J. Grant were also in the Deseret News, but of that latter I cannot speak with definiteness.

This is the end of the cross-examination.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 9 - E.B. Critchlow, part 3

March 11, 1904


This is the third part of the testimony given by E. B. Critchlow.

The first part of cross-examination testimony concerns the protest and how it came about.  The Ministerial Association committee (of 3 members) wanted this protest drafted, and Mr. Critchlow met with Dr. Paden many times to bring this to pass.  He states that this protest was essentially what the non-Mormon public felt almost universally and was reduced to a "proper form of protest."

Mr. Van Cott asks if some of the signers of the protest were opposed to the church.  He asks if Mr. P.L. Williams and Mr. C.C. Goodwin have "always been bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church."  He says that Mr. P.L. Williams has always been "bitterly opposed to the practices of the Mormon leaders" and Mr. C.C. Goodwin has been opposed to the Mormon Church.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, Mr. Critchlow - not intending it for any offense at all, but simply to get information - you have been, too, have you not?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have always taken occasion to oppose the domination of the church and their practices.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is not quite the question.  You have always been bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church, have you not?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not admit the word "bitterly," Mr. Van Cott.  I admit the word "opposition" to its very fullest extent.

Commentary:  Ok, so he is a self-described Mormon opponent "to its very fullest extent."


Mr. Critchlow states that in the drafting of the protest that Mr. Leilich asked them "to put in many things which we refused to put in because we did not know of the absolute truth of them."  Thus it is inferred that Mr. Leilich's protest is a fulfillment of what he wanted to see Mr. Smoot charged with and that the protest contains "absolute truth" in the eyes of its signers.


He is asked about the general repute of Mr. Smoot's marital condition.  He states that before he was an apostle there was no doubt that he was not a polygamist; however, after becoming and apostle, he has doubts.

Mr. Critchlow.  The only thing that comes in to qualify that is the question whether they would permit anybody to go into the quorum of the twelve apostles who had not become sealed to somebody.  That is the only thing which questions it.
Mr. Van Cott.  Is that the general opinion?
Mr. Critchlow.  The general opinion is that he is not a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott.  Was it the general opinion out there that a man had to be a polygamist to be an apostle?
Mr. Critchlow.  It is among many people who are, or who profess to be, well acquainted with the doctrines of the church.
Mr. Van Cott.  What is your opinion?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have not any fixed opinion about it.  It depends entirely upon the person at the head of the church at the particular time.  If a person comes into the church at the present time I should think the chances were in favor of Joseph F. Smith requiring him to live his religion in some form or other before he could become an apostle.  With Lorenzo Snow, I do not think it was so.  With Wilford Woodruff, there might -
Senator Beveridge.  Do you think at the present time Mr. Smoot is a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not.

Commentary:  From this piece of testimony it would appear that there are people (Mormons?) who have studied or believe they know the doctrines of the Mormon Church who have stated that a requirement for becoming an apostle is living the doctrine of plural marriage.  I've heard different opinions on this and think it interesting for a non-Mormon to know this; therefore, it must have been semi-prevalent and not very secret for this type of information to be available.  I don't know the truth of this, but having heard rumblings about things like this, it would surprise me that it was very much like Mr. Critchlow stated.  I also appreciate his honesty:  If he doesn't believe something, he will not shy away for it but will come right out and state it.

Mr. Van Cott.  Did I understand you to say, in answer to a question propounded by Senator Beveridge, that you did not believe Joseph F. Smith would allow an apostle to come into the quorum unless he was a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; I did not say that; at least I did not mean to say it.  I meant to say that I very much question whether Joseph F. Smith would consent to a man coming into the apostolate without he either was then or was willing to live up to the principles of the religion as he preaches and professes them, which includes the sealing for eternity, as is commonly understood.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, you said before, to quote some of your words, "unless he would live his religion?"
Mr. Critchlow.  Live his religion.  That is a common phrase used in Utah.
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you want the committee to understand by that expression that he is a polygamist when he goes in, or that he has to become a polygamist thereafter?
Mr. Critchlow.  I want the committee to understand only this:  That I do not believe - and it is a matter simply of my own private belief, deduced from what I know of the man and his teachings and his course - he will permit a man to be an apostle unless he were either at the time of his election in the status of having lived his religion to that extent, or that he would become such, unless he were a member of the Smith family.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, if he were a member of the Smith family you think he would allow a person to become an apostle without either being a polygamist or expecting him to become one?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think that would very largely influence Mr. Smith in permitting a man to become an apostle.  If he were his son or his nephew, I think he might be willing to waive any qualification of that sort.

Commentary:  Ok, there's some interesting opinions in that testimony.  I like the "live his religion" line; that is still used today.

Mr. Van Cott.  How do you explain this statement with reference to Anthon H. Lund [not being a polygamist, but yet being high up in the church authorities]?
Mr. Critchlow.  I can explain it only from information, and that is that his first wife will not consent to his taking another wife, and has never consented to it.

Commentary:  Ah, so he's not a polygamist because his first wife will not let him be one.  This can also be taken another way; namely, that he cares a great deal for his first wife and as such respects her wishes.


After a few questions going back and forth with Mr. Critchlow avoiding answering directly the question asked, Mr. Van Cott finally twists his arm enough to answer straight:

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, you are a lawyer?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  I have asked the question several times about that:  Do you believe President Smith is not speaking the truth when he says that plural marriages have stopped?
Mr. Critchlow.  I believe he is not speaking the truth, if you wish me to say it.  He is not speaking the truth with regard to conditions as they exist in Utah, which I suppose he must know as everyone else knows them.

Commentary:  Well, there's the admission.  Mr. Critchlow believes Joseph F. Smith is a liar and is misrepresenting conditions as they really exist in Utah with regards to polygamous relationships and probably anything else he wishes to hide.  In his opinion, it is obvious that nothing coming from Mr. Smith can be trusted as being the truth.


Mr. Van Cott then brings up a situation where a non-Mormon, businessman (owner of a brewery), Republican, was not elected mainly because of the influence of the Ministerial Association.

Mr. Van Cott.  Have you any doubt but that it was the result of that fight which defeated him?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have not any doubt that they influenced enough votes to defeat him.

Commentary:  Alright, so this same Ministerial Association goes after people they don't like and they try and influence, politically, anyone and everyone to side with their opinion - and they are successful.  They influenced enough votes to defeat Mr. Jacob Moritz (brewery owner) and now they've got their sights set on Mr. Smoot.  They lost that battle with the legislature, but the carried their fight further because Mr. Critchlow was acquainted with how to file a protest with the Senate - so they used him to do this.  The other side of this coin is that it is dirty politics for a church to help elect, or fight the elections of someone; however, the Ministerial Association does not come under those "rules of politics;" that's just politics as usual because they aren't as powerful in the State as the Church is.  That seems rather hypocritical to me.


Mr. Van Cott then asks about prosecutions during his time as an assistant district attorney, and he asks if Mr. Critchlow ever prosecuted Joseph F. Smith or John Henry Smith.  He did not.

Senator Overman.  Why did you not prosecute him?  You were a Government officer and you knew he was living in unlawful cohabitation?
Mr. Critchlow.  Joseph F. Smith was not in the country at that time, as I now recall.
Senator Beveridge.  Is that the reason why you did not prosecute him?
Mr. Critchlow.  I cannot say that was the only reason.  Of course, prosecutions were based upon information brought in and put before the grand jury by those who were willing to volunteer it, or those of the deputy marshals who were able to procure it; and it is by no means easy to procure.  Whenever information was brought in it certainly was laid before the grand jury, which was the only method of prosecution.
Senator Beveridge.  Did you attempt prosecutions against Mr. Smith or any of these men?
Mr. Critchlow.  I cannot say I attempted it any further than to take charge of the information which the deputy marshals would bring in.  They were the ones who were seeking out this information, and whenever it was obtained it was used against any of the Smiths or the apostles or anyone else.
Senator Beveridge.  As a high officer of the law, if you yourself had knowledge, if you knew it was a matter of common repute, if you yourself knew the circumstances, or any violation of the law by any of these gentlemen, would it be your duty simply to sit there and wait until some person brought you information in a formal way on that subject or would it be your duty to take the initiative?
Mr. Critchlow.  It would be my duty to attempt to stir up the proper officers of the law, who at that time were supposed to be the deputy marshals, to procure the information.
Senator Beveridge.  Did you do that?
Mr. Critchlow.  Against Mr. Joseph F. Smith?
Senator Beveridge.  Or any of these prominent men as to whom you have testified as having been notorious in this regard?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not recollect that I did.
Senator Beveridge.  Why not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Because I had no information with regard to it that was not common to everybody else, and it was not information sufficient to convict.  But the information that was before us all with regard to these matters at that time was that polygamy had stopped, and that unlawful cohabitation, which it was going on after September, 1890, that it was going to be stopped.  There was rather a disinclination upon the part of everybody connected with the prosecution of offenses to stir up these matters, because we thought it would work itself out; that the situation would become alleviated by the general progress of time.

Commentary:  I put myself in Mr. Critchlow's shoes while reading this testimony and I felt a little uncomfortable answering those questions.  I guess his job performance was being called into question by the Senators, and that wouldn't be comfortable at all.  Mr. Critchlow is opposed to the Mormon Church to the fullest extent possible; he files protests against its leader political leaders (and religious leaders); he prosecuted Mormons, etc.  However, he himself did nothing to bring in the top dogs of the Mormon Church - "I do not recollect that I did;" relying instead on the job description to bail him out.  It wasn't my job was as best he could come up with.  That seems a little weak given his pursuit against Reed Smoot - all the way to Washington before a Senate committee.  One thing that will play in his favor later on is that many witnesses will give essentially the same testimony as given here - they did not prosecute or pursue, and this will be to the Senator's shock.


In 1894, Mr. Critchlow was involved in politics and in fact traveled with politicians as they made rounds to "stump" for their party and ticket.  One of the people that he did with was John Henry Smith.  This traveling was done for the constitutional convention election to be held for drafting a constitution for the future State of Utah.

Mr. Van Cott.  Did you vote for your ticket in Salt Lake County that year?
Mr. Critchlow.  I undoubtedly did.
Mr. Van Cott.  Did you vote for John Henry Smith?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so.
Mr. Van Cott.  He was a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Known to be a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Did you think you were encouraging polygamists to live in unlawful cohabitation because you voted for John Henry Smith to be a member of the constitutional convention?
Mr. Critchlow.  I did not think I was voting on that subject; no; I did not think that I was.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  You went out on the stump also, as late as 1894, with John Henry Smith?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  He was a Mormon apostle?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Living in polygamy?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so.
Mr. Van Cott.  I mean living in unlawful cohabitation.
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You traveled with him disseminating Republican principles?
Mr. Critchlow.  As best I knew how.
Mr. Van Cott.  That was done for some time?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  Let me ask you a question right here.  Did you protest to him against his practices?
Mr. Critchlow.  Against the practices of Mr. Smith?
Senator Beveridge.  Yes.
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; except -
Senator Beveridge.  Did you admonish him?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; not at all.
Senator Beveridge.  When you were assistant United States district attorney did you admonish any of these gentlemen  or warn them to cease their practices?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not at all.

Commentary:  Wow, he was just dragged through the mud again.  This is again a similar line of questioning where Mr. Critchlow's principles and character are brought to question.  If he believes that polygamy and unlawful cohabitation are illegal, as he has stated here, then why didn't he prosecute these people, and why didn't he admonish them when he spent a great deal of time with them?  I guess it is much harder to do when you meet the person and talk with them face to face.


Mr. Van Cott then revisits the statement by Mr. Critchlow that prosecutions don't take place in Utah; he wants to have Mr. Critchlow's reasoning on this point:

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, is it not the fact that the general feeling in Utah, among non-Mormons - leaving the Mormons out of view - has been that if all plural marriages had ceased since the manifesto, these relations of unlawful cohabitation they were practically willing to close their eyes to?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so, except in cases where they were really absolutely offensive, or where they occurred in such a manner as to be really examples to the people.  Amongst the higher officials, and even with them, I think it would be fair to say that people were inclined minimize these things as much as possible for the peace of the State and the community and for its upbuilding, and to remove the reproach of it before the country.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  Now, the other matter that you spoke of - this offensive flaunting.  I wish you would give to the committee a little more in detail what you understand by that, and I call your attention now to the language used by the Supreme Court of the United States where it has quoted that particular phrase.
Mr. Critchlow.  What would be offensive to one person of course might not be to another.  If a man had a polygamous wife and family right by my door side, and his children associated with mine, and he visited a half or a third of his time somewhere else, and it was placed there under my face, it might be offensive to me, while to you or to somebody else, living in another part of the town, it might not be offensive.
     Again, where a man takes two sisters under the same roof, that might be offensive to the whole community.  Then again, it might be entirely innocent and unoffensive to a great class of people who do not care anything about those things.
     Again, I may say, where a man has a polygamous wife in a community and brings other polygamous wives there and makes a sort of a colony of it, then it becomes offensive even to a whole community.  That sort of thing becomes offensive, in a greater or lesser extent, dependent entirely upon the sensibilities of the people immediately affected.
Mr. Van Cott.  But where the polygamists have had their wives living in separate houses, and have simply kept up the old relations without an offensive flaunting before the public of the relations, it has been practically passed over, has it not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir; as a matter of fact it has been.

There are apparently different classes of polygamists in Utah at this time.  "Mr. John Henry Smith was a different man from polygamists generally."  I take this to mean that he acted like a normal gentlemen, even though he had multiple wives.

To close up the testimony for this day, Senator Beveridge wants to know more about how Mr. Critchlow came across the information about the revelation with the electric-light plant in Brigham City.

Senator Beveridge.  I understood you to say that you got this information from an attorney out there?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  And that he, of course, got his information from somebody else outside of general repute?
Mr. Critchlow.  Necessarily, I assume.
Senator Beveridge.  So that your testimony amounts to this - that you say that a man said to you that somebody else said to him that the president of the stake had a revelation on the subject of an electric-light plant at this place, that he laid it before the council, and there was a disruption, etc.?
...
Mr. Critchlow.  I take it in a legal sense that is as close as it comes to being evidence.

Commentary:  I find it a little comical that Senator Beveridge has to be the lawyer for the respondent and do the cross-examination.  He seems to be very sharp.  In this instance he brought out the source of the revelations as a very confusing line of people to tie hearsay to.  Really, that was Mr. Van Cott's job, not the Senator's.  Bravo to the Senator for paying attention enough to pick up on this fact.

At 4:10 PM the committe adjourned until tomorrow, Saturday, March 12, 1904 at 10:30 AM.