Horace Greeley, prejudiced as he was in favor of the Mormons when he visited Salt Lake City in 1859, was forced to observe:—"The degradation (or, if you please, the restriction) of woman to the single office of childbearing and its accessories is an inevitable consequence of the system here paramount. I have not observed a sign in the streets, an advertisement in the journals, of this Mormon metropolis, whereby a woman proposes to do anything whatever. No Mormon has ever cited to me his wife's or any woman's opinion on any subject; no Mormon woman has been introduced or spoken to me; and, though I have been asked to visit Mormons in their houses, no one has spoken of his wife (or wives) desiring to see me, or his desiring me to make her (or their) acquaintance, or voluntarily indicated the existence of such a being or beings."*
Woman's natural jealousy, and the suffering that a loving wife would endure when called upon to share her husband's affection and her home with other women, would seem to form a sort of natural check to polygamous marriages. But in Utah this check was overcome both by the absolute power of the priesthood over their flock, and by the adroit device of making polygamy not merely permissive, but essential to eternal salvation. That the many wives of even so exalted a prophet as Brigham Young could become rebellious is shown by the language employed by him in his discourse of September 21, 1856, of which the following will suffice as a specimen:—"Men will say, 'My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; no, not a happy day for a year.'... I wish my women to understand that what I am going to say is for them, as well as all others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women in this community, and then write it back to the states, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time till the 6th day of October next for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty, and say to them, 'Now go your way, my women with the rest; go your way.' And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting all around me. I will set all at liberty. What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all. I know what my women will say; they will say, 'You can have as many women as you please, Brigham.' But I want to go somewhere and do something to get rid of the whiners... . Sisters, I am not joking."*
Grant, on the same day, in connection with his presentation of the doctrine of blood atonement, declared that there was "scarcely a mother in Israel" who would not, if they could, "break asunder the cable of the Church in Christ; and they talk it to their husbands, to their daughters, and to their neighbors, and say that they have not seen a week's happiness since they became acquainted with that law, or since their husbands took a second wife."* The coarse and plain-spoken H. C. Kimball, in a discourse in the Tabernacle, November 9, 1856, thus defined the duty of polygamous wives, "It is the duty of a woman to be obedient to her husband, and, unless she is, I would not give a damn for all her queenly right or authority, nor for her either, if she will quarrel and lie about the work of God and the principles of plurality."**
Gentile observers were amazed, in the earlier days of Utah, to see to what lengths the fanatical teachings of the church officers would be accepted by women. Thus Mrs. Ferris found that the explanation of the willingness of many young women in Utah to be married to venerable church officers, who already had harems, was their belief that they could only be "saved" if married or sealed to a faithful Saint, and that an older man was less likely to apostatize, and so carry his wives to perdition with him, than a young one; therefore "it became an object with these silly fools to get into the harems of the priests and elders."
If this advantage of the church officers in the selection of new wives did not avail, other means were employed,*as in the notorious San Pete case. The officers remaining at home did not hesitate to insist on a fair division of the spoils (that is, the marriageable immigrants), as is shown by the following remarks of Heber C. Kimball to some missionaries about starting out: "Let truth and righteousness be your motto, and don't go into the world for anything but to preach the Gospel, build up the Kingdom of God, and gather the sheep into the fold. You are sent out as shepherds to gather the sheep together; and remember that they are not your sheep; they belong to Him that sends you. Then don't make a choice of any of those sheep; don't make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You understand that. Amen." Mr. Ferris thus described the use of his priestly power made by Wilford Woodruff, who, as head of the church in later years, gave out the advice about abandoning polygamy: "Woodruff has a regular system of changing his harem. He takes in one or more young girls, and so manages, after he tires of them, that they are glad to ask for a divorce, after which he beats the bush for recruits. He took a fresh one, about fourteen years old, in March, 1853, and will probably get rid of her in the course of the ensuing summer." **
Mrs. Waite thus relates a conversation she had with a Mormon wife about her husband going into polygamy:—"'Oh, it is hard,' she said, 'very hard; but no matter, we must bear it. It is a correct principle, and there is no salvation without it. We had one [wife] but it was so hard, both for my husband and myself, that we could not endure it, and she left us at the end of seven months. She had been with us as a servant several months, and was a good girl; but as soon as she was made a wife she became insolent, and told me she had as good a right to the house and things as I had, and you know that didn't suit me well. But,' continued she, 'I wish we had kept her, and I had borne everything, for we have GOT TO HAVE ONE, and don't you think it would be pleasanter to have one you had known than a stranger?'"*
The voice which the first wife had in the matter was defined in the Seer (Vol. I, p. 41). If she objected, she could state her objection to President Young, who, if he found the reason sufficient, could forbid the marriage; but if he considered that her reason was not good, then the marriage could take place, and "he [the husband] will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him as Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob." Young's dictatorship in the choice of wives was equally absolute. "No man in Utah," said the Seer (Vol. I, p. 31), "who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any proposition of marriage to a lady until he has consulted the President of the whole church, and through him obtained a revelation from God as to whether it would be pleasing in His sight."
The authority of the priesthood was always exerted to compel at least every prominent member of the church to take more wives than one. "For a man to be confined to one woman is a small business," said Kimball in the Tabernacle, on April 4, 1857. This influence coerced Stenhouse to take as his second wife a fourteen-year-old daughter of Parley P. Pratt, although he loved his legal wife, and she had told him that she would not live with him if he married again, and although his intimate friend, Superintendent Cooke, of the Overland Stage Company, to save him, threatened to prosecute him under the law against bigamy if he yielded.* Another illustration, given by Mrs. Waite, may be cited. Kimball, calling on a Prussian immigrant named Taussig one day, asked him how he was doing and how many wives he had, and on being told that he had two, replied, "That is not enough. You must take a couple more. I'll send them to you." The narrative continues:—
"On the following evening, when the brother returned home, he found two women sitting there. His first wife said, 'Brother Taussig' (all the women call their husbands brother), 'these are the Sisters Pratt.' They were two widows of Parley P. Pratt. One of the ladies, Sarah, then said, 'Brother Taussig, Brother Kimball told us to call on you, and you know what for.' 'Yes, ladies,' replied Brother Taussig, 'but it is a very hard task for me to marry two' The other remarked, 'Brother Kimball told us you were doing a very good business and could support more women.' Sarah then took up the conversation, 'Well, Brother Taussig, I want to get married anyhow.' The good brother replied, 'Well, ladies, I will see what I can do and let you know."*
Brother Taussig compromised the matter with the Bishop of his ward by marrying Sarah, but she did not like her new home, and he was allowed to divorce her on payment of $10 to Brigham Young!
Each polygamous family was, of course, governed in accordance with the character of its head: a kind man would treat all his wives kindly, however decided a preference he might show for one; and under a brute all would be unhappy. Young, in his earlier days at Salt Lake City, used to assemble all his family for prayers, and have a kind word for each of the women, and all ate at a common table after his permanent residences were built. "Brigham's wives," says Hyde, "although poorly clothed and hard worked, are still very infatuated with their system, very devout in their religion, very devoted to their children. They content themselves with his kindness as they cannot obtain his love."* He kept no servants, the wives performing all the household work, and one of them acting as teacher to her own and the others' children. As the excuse for marriage with the Mormons is childbearing, the older wives were practically discarded, taking the place of examples of piety and of spiritual advisers.
A summing up of the many-sided evils of polygamy was thus presented by President Cleveland in his first annual message:—"The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation rests upon our homes, established by the law of God, guarded by parental care, regulated by parental authority, and sanctified by parental love. These are not the homes of polygamy.
"The mothers of our land, who rule the nation as they mould the characters and guide the actions of their sons, live according to God's holy ordinances, and each, secure and happy in the exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all within her pure and wholesome family circle. These are not the cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.
"The fathers of our families are the best citizens of the Republic. Wife and children are the sources of patriotism, and conjugal and parental affection beget devotion to the country. The man who, undefiled with plural marriage, is surrounded in his single home with his wife and children, has a status in the country which inspires him with respect for its laws and courage for its defence. These are not the fathers of polygamous families."
The first measure "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States" was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill No. 7) at the first session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860. It contained clauses annulling some of the acts of the territorial legislature of Utah, including the one incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14, the committee declaring that "no argument was deemed necessary to prove that an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by the universal concurrence of the Christian and civilized world," and characterizing the church incorporation act as granting "such monstrous powers and arrogant assumptions as are at war with the genius of our government." The bill passed the House on April 5, by a vote of 149 to 60, was favorably reported to the Senate by Mr. Bayard from the Judiciary Committee on June 13, but did not pass that House.
Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in the next Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was passed by the House on April 28. Mr. Bayard, from the judiciary Committee, reported it back to the Senate on June 3 with amendments. He explained that the House Bill punished not only polygamous marriages, but cohabitation without marriage. The committee recommended limiting the punishment to bigamy—a fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment for not more than five years. Another amendment limited the amount of real estate which a church corporation could hold in the territories to $50,000. The bill passed the Senate with the negative votes of only the two California senators, and the House accepted the amendments. Lincoln signed it.
Nothing practical was accomplished by this legislation, In 1867 George A. Smith and John Taylor, the presiding officers of the Utah legislature, petitioned Congress to repeal this act, setting forth as one reason that "the judiciary of this territory has not, up to the present time, tried any case under said law, though repeatedly urged to do so by those who have been anxious to test its constitutionality." The House Judiciary Committee reported that this was a practical request for the sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced. The humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at present practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and that the gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in the opinion of the committee, if it be through the fault or neglect of the judiciary of that territory that the laws are not enforced, the judges should be removed without delay; and that, if the failure to execute the law arises from other causes, it becomes the duty of the President of the United States to see that the law is faithfully executed."*
In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation concerning such marriages as were performed and sanctioned by the Mormon church, but it did not pass. Senator Cragin of New Hampshire soon introduced a similar bill, but it, too failed to become a law.
In 1869, in the first Congress that met under President Grant, Mr. Cullom of Illinois introduced in the House the bill aimed at polygamy that was designated by his name. This bill was the practical starting-point of the anti-polygamous legislation subsequently enacted, as over it was aroused the feeling—in its behalf in the East and against it in Utah—that resulted in practical legislation.
Delegate Hooper made the leading speech against it, summing up his objections as follows:—
"(1) That under our constitution we are entitled to be protected in the full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.
"(2) That our views of the marriage relation are an essential portion of our religious faith.
"(3) That, in conceding the cognizance of the marriage relation as within the province of church regulations, we are practically in accord with all other Christian denominations.
"(4) That in our view of the marriage relation as a part of our religious belief we are entitled to immunity from persecution under the constitution, if such views are sincerely held; that, if such views are erroneous, their eradication must be by argument and not by force."
The bill, greatly amended, passed the House on March 23, 1870, by a vote of 94 to 32. The news of this action caused perhaps the greatest excitement ever known in Utah. There was no intention on the part of the Mormons to make any compromise on the question, and they set out to defeat the bill outright in the Senate. Meetings of Mormon women were gotten up in all parts of the territory, in which they asserted their devotion to the doctrine. The "Reformers," including Stenhouse, Harrison, Tullidge, and others, and merchants like Walker Brothers, Colonel Kahn, and T. Marshall, joined in a call for a mass-meeting at which all expressed disapproval of some of its provisions, like the one requiring men already having polygamous wives to break up their families. Mr. Godbe went to Washington while the bill was before the House, and worked hard for its modification. The bill did not pass the Senate, a leading argument against it being the assumed impossibility of convicting polygamists under it with any juries drawn in Utah.
The arrest of Brigham Young and others under the act to punish adulterers, and the proceedings against them before Judge McKean in 1871, have been noted. At the same term of the court Thomas Hawkins, an English immigrant, was convicted of the same charge on the evidence of his wife, and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of $500. In passing sentence, Judge McKean told the prisoner that, if he let him off with a fine, the fine would be paid out of other funds than his own; that he would thus go free, and that "those men who mislead the people would make you and thousands of others believe that God had sent the money to pay the fine; that, by a miracle, you had been rescued from the authorities of the United States."
After the passage of the Poland law, in 1874, George Reynolds, Brigham Young's private secretary, was convicted of bigamy under the law of 1862, but was set free by the Supreme Court of the territory on the ground of illegality in the drawing of the grand jury. In the following year he was again convicted, and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of $500. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which rendered its decision in October, 1878, unanimously sustaining the conviction, except that Justice Field objected to the admission of one witness's testimony.
In its decision the court stated the question raised to be "whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification for an overt act made criminal by the law of the land." Next came a discussion of views of religious freedom, as bearing on the meaning of "religion" in the federal constitution, leading up to the conclusion that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties, or subversive of good order." The court then traced the view of polygamy in England and the United States from the time when it was made a capital offence in England (as it was in Virginia in 1788), declaring that, "in the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life." The opinion continued as follows:—"In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States has exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and, while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or, if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself on the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
"A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law, and the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.*
P. T. Van Zile of Michigan, who became district attorney of the territory in 1878, tried John Miles, a polygamist, for bigamy, in 1879, and he was convicted, the prosecutor taking advantage of the fact that the territorial legislature had practically adopted the California code, which allowed challenges of jurors for actual bias. The principal incident of this trial was the summoning of "General" Wells, then a counsellor of the church, as a witness, and his refusal to describe the dress worn during the ceremonies in the Endowment House, and the ceremonies themselves. He gave as his excuse, "because I am under moral and sacred obligations to not answer, and it is interwoven in my character never to betray a friend, a brother, my country, my God, or my religion." He was sentenced to pay a fine, of $100, and to two days' imprisonment. On his release, the City Council met him at the prison door and escorted him home, accompanied by bands of music and a procession made up of the benevolent, fire, and other organizations, and delegations from every ward.
Governor Emery, in his message to the territorial legislature of 1878, spoke as plainly about polygamy as any of his predecessors, saying that it was a grave crime, even if the law against it was a dead letter, and characterizing it as an evil endangering the peace of society.
There was a lull in the agitation against polygamy in Congress for some years after the contest over the Cullom Bill. In 1878 a mass-meeting of women of Salt Lake City opposed to polygamy was held there, and an address "to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes and the women of the United States," and a petition to Congress, were adopted, and a committee was appointed to distribute the petition throughout the country for signatures. The address set forth that there had been more polygamous marriages in the last year than ever before in the history of the Mormon church; that Endowment Houses, under the name of temples, and costing millions, were being erected in different parts of the territory, in which the members were "sealed and bound by oaths so strong that even apostates will not reveal them"; that the Mormons had the balance of power in two territories, and were plotting to extend it; and asking Congress "to arrest the further progress of this evil."
President Hayes, in his annual message in December, 1879, spoke of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, and said that there was no reason for longer delay in the enforcement of the law, urging "more comprehensive and searching methods" of punishing and preventing polygamy if they were necessary. He returned to the subject in his message in 1880, saying: "Polygamy can only be suppressed by taking away the political power of the sect which encourages and sustains it.. .. I recommend that Congress provide for the government of Utah by a Governor and judges, or Commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, (or) that the right to vote, hold office, or sit on juries in the Territory of Utah be confined to those who neither practise nor uphold polygamy."
President Garfield took up the subject in his inaugural address on March 4, 1881. "The Mormon church," he said, "not only offends the moral sense of mankind by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents the administration of justice through ordinary instrumentalities of law." He expressed the opinion that Congress should prohibit polygamy, and not allow "any ecclesiastical organization to usurp in the smallest degree the functions and power, of the national government." President Arthur, in his message in December, 1881, referred to the difficulty of securing convictions of persons accused of polygamy—"this odious crime, so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom"—and recommended legislation.
In the spirit of these recommendations, Senator Edmunds introduced in the Senate, on December 12, 1881, a comprehensive measure amending the antipolygamy law of 1862, which, amended during the course of the debate, was passed in the Senate on February 12, 1882, without a roll-call,*and in the House on March 13, by a vote of 199 to 42, and was approved by the President on March 22. This is what is known as the Edmunds law—the first really serious blow struck by Congress against polygamy.
It provided, in brief, that, in the territories, any person who, having a husband or wife living, marries another, or marries more than one woman on the same day, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment, for not more than five years; that a male person cohabiting with more than one woman shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to a fine of not more than $300 or to six months' imprisonment, or both; that in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, a juror may be challenged if he is or has been living in the practice of either offence, or if he believes it right for a man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at a time, or to cohabit with more than one woman; that the President may have power to grant amnesty to offenders, as described, before the passage of this act; that the issue of so-called Mormon marriages born before January 1, 1883, be legitimated; that no polygamist shall be entitled to vote in any territory, or to hold office under the United States; that the President shall appoint in Utah a board of five persons for the registry of voters, and the reception and counting of votes.
To meet the determined opposition to the new law, an amendment (known as the Edmunds-Tucker law) was enacted in 1887. This law, in any prosecution coming under the definition of plural marriages, waived the process of subpoena, on affadavit of sufficient cause, in favor of an attachment; allowed a lawful husband or wife to testify regarding each other; required every marriage certificate in Utah to be signed by the parties and the person performing the ceremony, and filed in court; abolished female suffrage, and gave suffrage only to males of proper age who registered and took an oath, giving the names of their lawful wives, and promised to obey the laws of the United States, and especially the Edmunds law; disqualified as a juror or officeholder any person who had not taken an oath to support the laws of the United States, or who had been convicted under the Edmunds law; gave the President power to appoint the judges of the probate courts;* provided for escheating to the United States for the use of the common schools the property of corporations held in violation of the act in 1862, except buildings held exclusively for the worship of God, the parsonages connected therewith, and burial places; dissolved the corporation called the Perpetual Emigration Company, and forbade the legislature to pass any law to bring persons into the territory; dissolved the corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and gave the Supreme Court of the territory power to wind up its affairs; and annulled all laws regarding the Nauvoo Legion, and all acts of the territorial legislature.
The first members of the Utah commission appointed under the Edmunds law were Alexander Ramsey of Minnesota, A. B. Carleton of Indiana, A. S. Paddock of Nebraska, G. L. Godfrey of Iowa, and J. R. Pettigrew of Arkansas, their appointments being dated June 23, 1882.
The officers of the church and the Mormons as a body met the new situation as aggressively as did Brigham Young the approach of United States troops. Their preachers and their newspapers reiterated the divine nature of the "revelation" concerning polygamy and its obligatory character, urging the people to stand by their leaders in opposition to the new laws. The following extracts from "an Epistle from the First Presidency, to the officers and members of the church," dated October 6, 1885, will sufficiently illustrate the attitude of the church organization:—"The war is openly and undisguisedly made upon our religion. To induce men to repudiate that, to violate its precepts, and break its solemn covenants, every encouragement is given. The man who agrees to discard his wife or wives, and to trample upon the most sacred obligations which human beings can enter into, escapes imprisonment, and is applauded: while the man who will not make this compact of dishonor, who will not admit that his past life has been a fraud and a lie, who will not say to the world, 'I intended to deceive my God, my brethren, and my wives by making covenants I did not expect to keep,' is, beside being punished to the full extent of the law, compelled to endure the reproaches, taunts, and insults of a brutal judge....
"We did not reveal celestial marriage. We cannot withdraw or renounce it, God revealed it, and he has promised to maintain it and to bless those who obey it. Whatever fate, then, may threaten us, there is but one course for men of God to take; that is, to keep inviolate the holy covenants they have made in the presence of God and angels. For the remainder, whether it be life or death, freedom or imprisonment, prosperity or adversity, we must trust in God. We may say, however, if any man or woman expects to enter into the celestial kingdom of our God without making sacrifices and without being tested to the very uttermost, they have not understood the Gospel....
"Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the church, at that day, as it could be to any people. They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such relationship. But the command of God was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey, 'For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory.'... Who would suppose that any man, in this land of religious liberty, would presume to say to his fellow-man that he had no right to take such steps as he thought necessary to escape damnation? Or that Congress would enact a law which would present the alternative to religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey a law of God which would deliver them from damnation?"
There was a characteristic effort to evade the law as regards political rights. The People's Party (Mormon), to get around the provision concerning the test oath for voters, issued an address to them which said: "The questions that intending voters need therefore ask themselves are these: Are we guilty of the crimes of said act; or have we THE PRESENT INTENTION of committing these crimes, or of aiding, abetting, causing or advising any other person to commit them. Male citizens who can answer these questions in the negative can qualify under the laws as voters or office-holders."
Two events in 1885 were the cause of so much feeling that United States troops were held in readiness for transportation to Utah. The first of these was the placing of the United States flag at half mast in Salt Lake City, on July 4, over the city hall, county court-house, theatre, cooperative store, Deseret News office, tithing office, and President Taylor's residence, to show the Mormon opinion that the Edmunds law had destroyed liberty. When a committee of non-Mormon citizens called at the city hall for an explanation of this display, the city marshal said that it was "a whim of his," and the mayor ordered the flag raised to its proper place.
In November of that year a Mormon night watchman named McMurrin was shot and severely wounded by a United States deputy marshal named Collin. This caused great feeling, and there were rumors that the Mormons threatened to lynch Collin, that armed men had assembled to take him out of the officers' hands, and that the Mormons of the territory were arming themselves, and were ready at a moment's notice to march into Salt Lake City. Federal troops were held in readiness at Eastern points, but they were not used. The Salt Lake City Council, on December 8, made a report denying the truth of the disquieting rumors, and declaring that "at no time in the history of this city have the lives and property of its non-Mormon inhabitants been more secure than now."
The records of the courts in Utah show that the Mormons stood ready to obey the teachings of the church at any cost. Prosecutions under the Edmunds law began in 1884, and the convictions for polygamy or unlawful cohabitation (mostly the latter) were as follows in the years named: 3 in 1884, 39 in 1885, 112 in 1886, 214 in 1887, and 100 in 1888, with 48 in Idaho during the same period. Leading men in the church went into hiding—"under ground," as it was called—or fled from the territory. As to the actual continuance of polygamous marriages, the evidence was contradictory. A special report of the Utah Commission in 1884 expressed the opinion that there had been a decided decrease in their number in the cities, and very little decrease in the rural districts. Their regular report for that year estimated the number of males and females who had entered into that relation at 459. The report for 1888 stated that the registration officers gave the names of 29 females who, they had good reason to believe, had contracted polygamous marriages since the lists were closed in June, 1887. As late as 1889 Hans Jespersen was arrested for unlawful cohabitation. As his plural marriage was understood to be a recent one, the case attracted wide attention, since it was expected to prove the insincerity of the church in making the protest against the Edmunds law principally on the ground that it broke up existing families. Jespersen pleaded guilty of adultery and polygamy, and was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. In making his plea he said that he was married at the Endowment House in Salt Lake City, that he and his wife were the only persons there, and that he did not know who married them. His wife testified that she "heard a voice pronounce them man and wife, but didn't see any one nor who spoke." * Such were some of the methods adopted by the church to set at naught the law.
But along with this firm attitude, influences were at work looking to a change of policy. During the first year of the enforcement of the law it was on many sides declared a failure, the aggressive attitude of the church, and the willingness of its leaders to accept imprisonment, hiding, or exile, being regarded by many persons in the East as proof that the real remedy for the Utah situation was yet to be discovered. The Utah Commission, in their earlier reports, combated this idea, and pointed out that the young men in the church would grow restive as they saw all the offices out of their reach unless they took the test oath, and that they "would present an anomaly in human nature if they should fail to be strongly influenced against going into a relation which thus subjects them to political ostracism, and fixes on them the stigma of moral turpitude." How wide this influence was is seen in the political statistics of the times. When the Utah Commission entered on their duties in August, 1882, almost every office in the territory was held by a polygamist. By April, 1884, about 12,000 voters, male and female, had been disfranchised by the act, and of the 1351 elective officers in the territory not one was a polygamist, and not one of the municipal officers of Salt Lake City then in office had ever been "in polygamy."
The church leaders at first tried to meet this influence in two ways, by open rebuke of all Saints who showed a disposition to obey the new laws, and by special honors to those who took their punishment. Thus, the Deseret News told the brethren that they could not promise to obey the anti-polygamy laws without violating obligations that bound them to time and eternity; and when John Sharp, a leading member of the church in Salt Lake City, went before the court and announced his intention to obey these laws, he was instantly removed from the office of Bishop of his ward.
The restlessness of the flock showed itself in the breaking down of the business barriers set up by the church between Mormons and Gentiles. This subject received a good deal of attention in the minority report signed by two of the commissioners in 1888. They noted the sale of real estate by Mormons to Gentiles against the remonstrances of the church, the organization of a Chamber of Commerce in Salt Lake City in which Mormons and Gentiles worked together, and the union of both elements in the last Fourth of July celebration.
In the spring of 1890, at the General Conference held in Salt Lake City, the office of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator and President" of the church, that had remained vacant since the death of John Taylor in 1887, was filled by the election of Wilford Woodruff, a polygamist who had refused to take the test oath, while G. Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow, who were disfranchised for the same cause, were made respectively counsellor and president of the Twelve.* Woodruff was born in Connecticut in 1807, became a Mormon in 1832, was several times sent on missions to England, and had gained so much prominence while the church was at Nauvoo that he was the chief dedicator of the Temple there. While there, he signed a certificate stating that he knew of no other system of marriage in the church but the one-wife system then prescribed in the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants." Before the date of his promotion, Woodruff had declared that plural marriages were no longer permitted, and, when he was confronted with evidence to the contrary brought out in court, he denied all knowledge of it, and afterward declared that, in consequence of the evidence presented, he had ordered the Endowment House to be taken down.
Governor Thomas, in his report for 1890, expressed the opinion that the church, under its system, could in only one way define its position regarding polygamy, and that was by a public declaration by the head of the church, or by action by a conference, and he added, "There is no reason to believe that any earthly power can extort from the church any such declaration." The governor was mistaken, not in measuring the purpose of the church, but in foreseeing all the influences that were now making themselves felt.
The revised statutes of Idaho at this time contained a provision (Sec. 509) disfranchising all polygamists and debarring from office all polygamists, and all persons who counselled or encouraged any one to commit polygamy. The constitutionality of this section was argued before the United States Supreme Court, which, on February 3, 1890, decided that it was constitutional. The antipolygamists in Utah saw in this decision a means of attacking the Mormon belief even more aggressively than had been done by means of the Edmunds Bill. An act was drawn (Governor Thomas and ex-Governor West taking it to Washington) providing that no person living in plural or celestial marriage, or teaching the same, or being a member of, or a contributor to, any organization teaching it, or assisting in such a marriage, should be entitled to vote, to serve as a juror, or to hold office, a test oath forming a part of the act. Senator Cullom introduced this bill in the upper House and Mr. Struble of Iowa in the House of Representatives. The House Committee on Territories (the Democrats in the negative) voted to report the bill, amended so as to make it applicable to all the territories. This proposed legislation caused great excitement in Mormondom, and petitions against its passage were hurried to Washington, some of these containing non-Mormon signatures.
As a further menace to the position of the church, the United States Supreme Court, on May 19, affirmed the decision of the lower court confiscating the property of the Mormon church, and declaring that church organization to be an organized rebellion; and on June 21, the Senate passed Senator Edmunds's bill disposing of the real estate of the church for the benefit of the school fund.*