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

Stenhouse's "Tell it All."

The voice which the first wife had in the matter was defined in the Seer (Vol. I, p. 41). If she objected, she could state her objection to President Young, who, if he found the reason sufficient, could forbid the marriage; but if he considered that her reason was not good, then the marriage could take place, and "he [the husband] will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him as Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob." Young's dictatorship in the choice of wives was equally absolute. "No man in Utah," said the Seer (Vol. I, p.

31), "who already has a wife, and who may desire to obtain another, has any right to make any proposition of marriage to a lady until he has consulted the President of the whole church, and through him obtained a revelation from G.o.d 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 ill.u.s.tration, given by Mrs. Waite, may be cited. Kimball, calling on a Prussian immigrant named Taussig one day, asked him how he was doing and how many wives he had, and on being told that he had two, replied, "That is not enough. You must take a couple more. I'll send them to you." The narrative continues:--

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

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

Sarah then took up the conversation, 'Well, Brother Taussig, I want to get married anyhow.' The good brother replied, 'Well, ladies, I will see what I can do and let you know."*

* "The Mormon Prophet," p. 258.

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

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

* "Mormonism," p. 164.

** How far this doctrine was not observed may be noted in the following remarks of H. C. Kimball in the Tabernacle, on February 1, 1857: "They [his wives] have got to live their religion, serve their G.o.d, and do right as well as myself. Suppose that I lose the whole of them before I go into the spiritual world, but that I have been a good, faithful man all the days of my life, and lived my religion, and had favor with G.o.d, and was kind to them, do you think I will be dest.i.tute there? No. The Lord says there are more there than there are here. They have been increasing there; they increase there a great deal faster than they do here, because there is no obstruction. They do not call upon the doctors to kill their offspring. In this world very many of the doctors are studying to diminish the human race. In the spiritual world... we will go to Brother Joseph... and he will say to us, 'Come along, my boys, we will give you a good suit of clothes. Where are your wives?'

'They are back yonder; they would not follow us.' 'Never mind,'

says Joseph, 'here are thousands; have all you want.'"--Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, p. 209.

A summing up of the many-sided evils of polygamy was thus presented by President Cleveland in his first annual message:--"The strength, the perpetuity, and the destiny of the nation rests upon our homes, established by the law of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d's holy ordinances, and each, secure and happy in the exclusive love of the father of her children, sheds the warm light of true womanhood, unperverted and unpolluted, upon all within her pure and wholesome family circle. These are not the cheerless, crushed, and unwomanly mothers of polygamy.

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

CHAPTER XXIV. -- THE FIGHT AGAINST POLYGAMY--STATEHOOD

The first measure "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States" was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill No. 7) at the first session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860. It contained clauses annulling some of the acts of the territorial legislature of Utah, including the one incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14, the committee declaring that "no argument was deemed necessary to prove that an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by the universal concurrence of the Christian and civilized world," and characterizing the church incorporation act as granting "such monstrous powers and arrogant a.s.sumptions as are at war with the genius of our government." The bill pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.s that House.

Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in the next Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sed 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, pet.i.tioned 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 const.i.tutionality." The House Judiciary Committee reported that this was a practical request for the sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced. The humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at present practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and that the gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in the opinion of the committee, if it be through the fault or neglect of the judiciary of that territory that the laws are not enforced, the judges should be removed without delay; and that, if the failure to execute the law arises from other causes, it becomes the duty of the President of the United States to see that the law is faithfully executed."*

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

In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation concerning such marriages as were performed and sanctioned by the Mormon church, but it did not pa.s.s. 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 const.i.tution we are ent.i.tled 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 ent.i.tled to immunity from persecution under the const.i.tution, 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, pa.s.sed 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 a.s.serted 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 ma.s.s-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. G.o.dbe went to Washington while the bill was before the House, and worked hard for its modification. The bill did not pa.s.s the Senate, a leading argument against it being the a.s.sumed 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 pa.s.sing 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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 const.i.tution, 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 const.i.tutional 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 const.i.tutional 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 circ.u.mstances.

"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 const.i.tute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.*

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

P. T. Van Zile of Michigan, who became district attorney of the territory in 1878, tried John Miles, a polygamist, for bigamy, in 1879, and he was convicted, the prosecutor taking advantage of the fact that the territorial legislature had practically adopted the California code, which allowed challenges of jurors for actual bias. The princ.i.p.al 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 G.o.d, 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 ma.s.s-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 pet.i.tion to Congress, were adopted, and a committee was appointed to distribute the pet.i.tion 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.