LABORS AFTER THE UTAH WAR—A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE—SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE—PROBATE JUDGE—GREAT DISCUSSION WITH VICE-PRESIDENT SCHUYLER COLFAX.

After the close of the "Mormon War," Elder Taylor's public labors were mostly confined to Utah. For a number of years he traveled extensively through all the settlements of the Saints, preaching the gospel, usually accompanying President Brigham Young in his annual preaching tours. He also attended all conferences and councils, and assisted in a general way all public enterprises.

He was a member of the Utah Territorial Legislature from 1857 to 1876; and was elected speaker of the House for five successive sessions, beginning in 1857. As the Speaker of the House he won the esteem of the members by his uniform courtesy and fairness. As a member he sought to promote the interests of his constituents and at the same time to legislate for the welfare of the entire Territory.

In 1868 he was elected Probate Judge of Utah County, and continued in office until the December term of that court in 1870. As the laws of Utah then provided that the probate courts should "have power to exercise original jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, and as well in chancery as in common law," the position was one of considerable importance. Especially in those days when the perverseness of Federal judges led them frequently to close the district courts indefinitely, because, forsooth, the grand juries insisted on indicting men only when the facts before them warranted such action, and petit juries insisted on the right to judge the guilt or innocence of men accused of crime according to the facts proven in open court, instead of finding them guilty or innocent according as the wishes or prejudices of the judge would have them condemned or liberated.

During these years, too, he continued to stand up in defense of the rights and liberties of the Saints, missing no opportunity to speak out in his bold, manly style against those who would wrong them.

In October, 1869, Utah for the second time was visited by the Hon. Schuyler Colfax, then vice-President of the United States. On the 5th of the month he delivered a speech from the portico of the Townsend House, now the Continental Hotel. In that speech, which was extensively published in the east, the vice-president made an attack on the Mormon religion, and justified Congress in the enactment of laws against the practice of plural marriage. To this speech Elder Taylor, then temporarily absent from the Territory, in Boston, replied through the columns of the New York Tribune.

In his speech the vice-president took the position that the marriage institution of the Saints did not involve the question of religion; his exact words were: "I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and which is condemned by the law, is a question of religion;" and from that basis argued the question. His main point of argument I quote, observing only in passing that it has been the argument of tyrants and persecutors, acting under the cloak of law, ever since liberty had to struggle against oppression:

"I have no strictures to utter as to your creed on any really religious question. Our land is a land of civil and religious liberty, and the faith of every man is a matter between himself and God alone. You have as much right to worship the Creator through a President and twelve apostles of your church organization, as I have through the ministers and elders and creed of mine. And this right I would defend for you with as much zeal as the right of every other denomination throughout the land.

"But our country is governed by law, and no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the law. If it did, every wrong-doer would use that argument to protect himself in his disobedience to it."

Replying to this part of the Vice-President's argument, Elder Taylor commended the magnanimity and even-handed justice of the first paragraph saying that the sentiments did honor to the author of them and that they ought to be engraven on every American heart. To the second paragraph he replied:

"That our country is governed by law all admit; but when it is said that 'no assumed revelation justifies any one in trampling on the law,' I should respectfully ask, What! not if it interferes with my religious faith, which you state 'is a matter between God and myself alone?' Allow me, sir, here to state that the assumed revelation referred to is one of the most vital parts of our religious faith; it emanated from God and cannot be legislated away; it is part of the 'Everlasting Covenant' which God has given to man. Our marriages are solemnized by proper authority; a woman is sealed unto a man for time and for eternity, by the power of which Jesus speaks, which 'seals on earth and it is sealed in heaven.' With us it is 'Celestial Marriage;' take this from us and you rob us of our hopes and associations in the resurrection of the just. This not our religion? You do not see things as we do. * * * I make these remarks to show that it is considered, by us, a part of our religious faith, which I have no doubt, did you understand it as we do, you would defend, as you state, 'with as much zeal as the right of every other denomination throughout the land.' Permit me here to say, however, that it was the revelation (I will not say assumed) that Joseph and Mary had, which made them look upon Jesus as the Messiah; which made them flee from the wrath of Herod, who was seeking the young child's life. This they did in contravention of law which was his decree. Did they do wrong in protecting Jesus from the law? But Herod was a tyrant. That makes no difference; it was the law of the land, and I have yet to learn the difference between a tyrannical king and a tyrannical Congress. When we talk of executing law in either case, that means force,—force means an army, and an army means death. Now I am not sufficiently versed in metaphysics to discover the difference in its effects, between the asp of Cleopatra, the dagger of Brutus, the chalice of Lucretia Borgia, or the bullet or sabre of an American soldier.

"I have, sir, written the above in consequence of some remarks which follow:

"'I do not concede that the institution you have established here, and which is condemned by the law, is a question of religion.'

"Now, with all due deference, I do think that if Mr. Colfax had carefully examined our religious faith he would have arrived at other conclusions. In the absence of this I might ask, who constituted Mr. Colfax a judge of my religious faith? I think he has stated that 'The faith of every man is a matter between himself and God alone.'

"Mr. Colfax has a perfect right to state and feel that he does not believe in the revelation on which my religious faith is based, nor in my faith at all; but has he the right to dictate my religious faith? I think not; he does not consider it religion, but it is nevertheless mine.

"If a revelation from God is not a religion, what is?

"His not believing it from God makes no difference; I know it is. The Jews did not believe in Jesus but Mr. Colfax and I do; their unbelief does not alter the revelation."

Commenting more at length on the Vice-President's assumption that the marriage system of the Saints had nothing to do with religion, he said:

"Are we to understand that Mr. Colfax is created an umpire to decide upon what is religion and what is not, upon what is true religion and what is false? If so, by whom and what authority is he created judge? I am sure he has not reflected upon the bearing of this hypothesis, or he would not have made such an utterance.

"According to this theory no persons ever were persecuted for their religion, there never was such a thing known. Could anybody suppose that that erudite, venerable, and profoundly learned body of men,—the great Sanhedrim of the Jews; or that those holy men, the chief priests, scribes and Pharisees, would persecute anybody for religion? Jesus was put to death,—not for His religion,—but because He was a blasphemer; because He had a devil and cast out devils through Beelzebub the prince of devils; because He, being a carpenter's son, and known among them as such, declared Himself the Son of God. So they said, and they were the then judges. Could anybody be more horrified than those Jews at such pretensions? His disciples were persecuted, proscribed and put to death, not for their religion, but because they 'were pestilent fellows and stirrers up of sedition,' and because they believed in an 'assumed revelation' concerning 'one Jesus, who was put to death, and who, they said, had risen again.' It was for false pretensions and a lack of religion that they were persecuted. Their religion was not like that of the Jews; ours, not like that of Mr. Colfax.

"Loyola did not invent and put into use the faggot, the flame, the sword, the thumbscrews, the rack and gibbet to persecute anybody, it was to purify the Church of heretics, as others would purify Utah. His zeal was for the Holy Mother Church. The Nonconformists of England and Holland, the Huguenots of France and the Scottish non-Covenanters were not persecuted or put to death for their religion; it was for being schismatics, turbulent and unbelievers. All of the above claimed that they were persecuted for their religion. All of the persecutors, as Mr. Colfax said about us, did 'not concede that the institution they had established which was condemned by the law, was religion;' or, in other terms, it was an imposture or false religion."

Referring to the injustice and oppression which had been perpetrated on humanity in the name of law, he wrote the following fine vein of sarcasm:

"When Jesus was plotted against by Herod and the infants were put of death, who could complain? It was law: we must submit to law. The Lord Jehovah, or Jesus, the Savior of the world, has no right to interfere with law. Jesus was crucified according to law. Who can complain? Daniel was thrown into a den of lions strictly according to law. The king would have saved him, if he could; but he could not resist law. The massacre of St. Bartholomew was in accordance with law. The guillotine of Robespierre, of France, which cut heads off by the thousand, did it according to law. What right had the victims to complain? But these things were done in barbarous ages. Do not let us, then, who boast of our civilization, follow their example; let us be more just, more generous, more forbearing, more magnanimous. We are told that we are living in a more enlightened age. Our morals are more pure, (?) our ideas more refined and enlarged, our institutions more liberal. 'Ours,' says Mr. Colfax, 'is a land of civil and religious liberty, and the faith of every man is a matter between himself and God alone,' providing God don't shock our moral ideas by introducing something we don't believe in. If He does, let Him look out. We won't persecute, very far be that from us; but we will make our platforms, pass Congressional laws and make you submit to them. We may, it is true, have to send out an army, and shed the blood of many; but what of that? It is so much more pleasant to be proscribed and killed according to the laws of the Great Republic, in the 'asylum for the oppressed,' than to perish ignobly by the decrees of kings, through their miserable minions, in the barbaric ages."

The reply of Elder Taylor to the Vice-President's speech brought that gentleman out again in a long article on the Mormon question, published in the New York Independent. In addition to repeating the main argument of his speech, Mr. Colfax, undertook to trace out the history of the Mormons and answer the arguments of Elder Taylor. To this second production Elder Taylor made an elaborate and masterly reply that was quite as extensively published in the east as was the Vice-President's article. He followed his opponent through all his meanderings in dealing with the Mormon question; he corrected his errors, reproved his blunders, answered his arguments, laughed at his folly; now belaboring him with the knotty cudgel of unanswerable argument, and now roasting him before the slow fire of his sarcasm; now honoring him for his zeal, which, however mistaken, had the smack of honesty about it; and now pitying him for being led astray on some historical fact.

In the opening of his article the Vice-President made a rather ungenerous effort to belittle the achievements of the Mormon people, in redeeming the desert valleys of Utah. "For this," said he, "they claim great credit: and I would not detract one iota from all they are legitimately entitled to. It was a desert when they first emigrated thither. They have made large portions of it fruitful and productive, and their chief city is beautiful in location and attractive in its gardens and shrubbery. But the solution of it all is in one word—water. What seemed to the eye a desert became fruitful when irrigated; and the mountains whose crests are clothed in perpetual snow, furnished, in the unfailing supplies of their ravines, the necessary fertilizer."

This afforded Elder Taylor a fine opportunity for one of those poetic flights so frequently to be met with both in his writings and sermons. "Water!" he exclaimed. "Mirabile dictu! Here I must help Mr. C. out."

"This wonderful little water nymph, after playing with the clouds on our mountain tops, frolicking with the snow and rain in our rugged gorges for generations, coquetting with the sun and dancing to the sheen of the moon, about the time the Mormons came here, took upon herself to perform a great miracle, and descending to the valley with a wave of her magic wand and the mysterious words, 'hiccory, diccory, dock,' cities and streets were laid out, crystal waters flowed in ten thousand rippling streams, fruit trees and shrubbery sprang up, gardens and orchards abounded, cottages and mansions were organized, fruits, flowers and grain in all their elysian glory appeared and the desert blossomed as the rose; and this little frolicking elf, so long confined to the mountains and water courses proved herself far more powerful than Cinderella or Aladdin. Oh! Jealousy, thou green-eyed monster! Can no station in life be protected from the shimmer of thy glamour? must our talented and honorable Vice-President be subjected to thy jaundiced touch? But to be serious, did water tunnel through our mountains, construct dams, canals and ditches, lay out our cities and towns, import and plant choice fruit-trees, shrubs and flowers, cultivate the land and cover it with the cattle on a thousand hills, erect churches, school-houses and factories, and transform a howling wilderness into a fruitful field and a garden? * * * * * * * Unfortunately for Mr. Colfax, it was Mormon polygamists who did it. * * * * * What if a stranger on gazing upon the statuary in Washington and our magnificent Capitol, and after rubbing his eyes were to exclaim, 'Eureka! it is only rock and mortar and wood!' This discoverer would announce that instead of the development of art, intelligence, industry and enterprise, its component parts were simply stone, mortar and wood. Mr. Colfax has discovered that our improvements are attributable to water!"

Replying to the Vice-President's arguments and illustrations that the United States was justified in suppressing what it considered to be immoral, notwithstanding the Mormons claimed it to be part of their religious faith—in the course of which Mr. Colfax referred to the now familiar conduct of the English government in suppressing the suttee in India—Elder Taylor said:

"To present Mr. Colfax's argument fairly, it stands thus: The burning of Hindoo widows was considered a religious rite by the Hindoos. The British were horrified at the practice, and suppressed it. The Mormons believe polygamy to be a religious rite. The American nation consider it a scandal, and that they ought to put it down. Without entering into all the details, I think the above a fair statement of the question. He says 'The claim that religious faith commanded it was powerless, and it went down, as a relic of barbarism.' He says: 'History tells us what a civilized nation, akin to ours, actually did, where they had the power.' I wish to treat this argument with candor: * * * * * *

"The British suppressed the suttee in India, and therefore we must be equally moral and suppress polygamy in the United States. Hold! not so fast; let us state facts as they are and remove the dust. The British suppressed the suttee, but tolerated eighty-three millions of polygamists in India. The suppression of the suttee and that of polygamy are two very different things. If the British are indeed to be our exemplars, Congress had better wait until polygamy is suppressed in India. But it is absurd to compare the suttee to polygamy; one is murder and the destruction of life, the other is national economy and the increase and perpetuation of life. Suttee ranks truly with infanticide, both of which are destructive of human life. Polygamy is salvation compared with either, and tends even more than monogamy to increase and perpetuate the human race."

Elder Taylor closed the discussion with a vivid expose of the loathsome immorality and crime that existed in the villages, towns and cities of the East; and called the attention of the Vice-President to the fact that there was work enough for himself, for Congress and also for the moralists and ministers in the United States nearer home, in suppressing the evils by which they were immediately surrounded, without plunging into the isolated valleys of Utah to legislate away the religion of the Mormons, under the specious plea of suppressing crime.

Taking it all in all, this is doubtless the most important discussion in the history of the Church. The great reputation of Mr. Colfax as a speaker and writer; the fact that he had for many years been a member of Congress and accustomed to debate, together with the high station he occupied at the time of the discussion, gave to it a national importance. It occurred, too, at a critical time in the history of the Church. The Republican party had pledged itself to the accomplishment of two objects: the suppression of slavery and polygamy. Slavery it had abolished; and it was now expected that polygamy would receive its attention.

There was also, just then, an effort being made by prominent and wealthy members of the Church, to destroy the influence of President Brigham Young, or, if that failed, to weaken it by dividing the Church into parties. Of this movement the Vice-President was aware, as was also the President and the members of his Cabinet; and lent their influence as far as they could, to this scheme of disintegration; hoping, by fostering it, to solve the Mormon problem. That it failed miserably is notorious; but these considerations make the discussion between Elder Taylor and the Vice-President all the more important.

The discussion also serves another purpose. It affords an opportunity of comparing Elder Taylor with a man of acknowledged ability, liberal education and wide experience. In that comparison Elder Taylor loses nothing. In fact he gains by it; for, maugre the experience and learning and position of his opponent, he surpassed him not only in the force of argument, but in literary style, in the elegance, ease and beauty of his diction; while for courtesy, fair dealing and frankness, he was not surpassed by the Vice-President, who was noted for possessing these admirable qualities.