AN APPEAL TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

IT will be remembered by those who have read "The Missouri Persecutions," that Sidney Rigdon was released from prison in Liberty, Missouri, before Joseph and the other brethren escaped. On his arrival in Quincy, his position as one of the presidents of The Church, his education and eloquence, gave him the attention of the leading citizens of Quincy, and particularly enlisted the sympathy of Governor Carlin, of Illinois. By coming in contact with him, and relating the cruelties practiced against the Saints in Missouri, he conceived the altogether fanciful and utterly impracticable idea of impeaching the charter of Missouri on an item in the Constitution, viz: "that the general government shall give to each State a republican form of government." And it was his point to prove that such a government did not exist in Missouri. His plan was to present the story of the Saints' wrongs to the governors of the respective States, before the assembly of the several legislatures, and induce as many of them as possible to bring the case before the legislatures in their messages. Another part of the plan was to have a man at each State capital armed with affidavits that would give the necessary information to the legislatures. After the action of the State legislatures the case was to be presented to the national Congress for its consideration and action.

To carry out his plans George W. Robinson was appointed to take affidavits and collect general information bearing on the subject, and Sidney Rigdon himself secured letters of introduction to the governors of several States and to the President of the United States from Governor Carlin, of Illinois, and Governor Robert Lucas, of Iowa. On the fifth of May, 1839, however, at a conference of The Church held near Quincy, Joseph Smith presiding, the gigantic and fanciful scheme conceived by Sidney Rigdon was considered and somewhat reduced of its unwieldy proportions by the conference simply resolving:

That this conference send a delegate to the city of Washington to lay our case before the general government; and that President Rigdon be the delegate: and that Colonel Lyman Wight be appointed to receive the affidavits which are to be sent to the city of Washington.

Here the matter rested for a time through the inactivity of President Rigdon, whose ardor in the work of God about this time began to wane.

In consequence of the inactivity and lack of interest manifested by Sidney Rigdon in going to Washington to present the case of the Latter-day Saints vs. the State of Missouri to the President and Congress of the United States, at a High Council meeting, held at Commerce on the twentieth of October, 1839, the Prophet Joseph was appointed to be the delegate to Washington, and a few days later Sidney Rigdon and Elias Higbee were appointed by the same council to assist him in this mission.

As a contrast between the two men, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, I call attention to the fact that after his appointment to go to Washington to petition the general government for a redress of grievances, in behalf of the Saints, Sidney Rigdon had allowed nearly six months to pass away without doing anything; but the ninth day after Joseph was appointed to this mission he was found leaving Commerce with a two-horse carriage, accompanied by Rigdon, Higbee and Orin P. Rockwell, en route for Washington. The Prophet was always prompt in action. There were no tedious delays in anything he under took; no letting "I dare not wait upon I would, like the old cat 'i the adage." His motto for the commencement of his career had been, "When the Lord commands, do it." And it was pretty much the same thing when a council of the Priesthood, or himself individually, had determined upon any particular course of action, he at once set himself about performing it.

The mission for the city of Washington passed through Springfield, the capital of the State of Illinois, on their journey, and here met with Dr. Robert D. Foster, who afterwards, as we shall see, became prominently connected with events at Nauvoo. Elder Rigdon being ill, Dr. Foster administered medicines to him, journeying with Joseph's party for several days for that purpose. At last, however, Elder Rigdon became so weak that it became necessary to leave him near Columbus, Ohio; and Orin P. Rockwell and Dr. Foster remained with him, while Joseph and Judge Higbee continued their journey to Washington.

It was during this journey, too, that Joseph met another man destined to perform a prominent part in the drama enacted at Nauvoo. This was William Law, whom Joseph's party met at Springfield, Illinois. He was then leading a small company of Saints from Canada to Nauvoo. Joseph's company remained several days at Springfield, and he preached there several times, staying at the home of James Adams, the probate judge of that county. Judge Adams treated the Prophet with the kindness of a father.

An incident occurred as the party approached Washington which borders on the domain of the romantic, or perhaps may be considered to enter directly into it. The coachman stopped his horses in front of one of the many public houses they passed en route, to get his grog, when the horses took fright, and dashed down the road at break-neck speed. The passengers, as might be expected, became terror-stricken, and one woman in her excitement tried to throw her babe out of the window; she was prevented, however, by Joseph, who calmed her fears, and persuaded the rest of the passengers to keep their seats. He then opened the door of the coach and succeeded in climbing up the side of the vehicle, and reaching the driver's seat. Gathering up the reins, he stopped the horses before any accident occurred either to coach or passengers.

It is needless to say that Joseph's heroism drew from his fellow-passengers their warmest expressions of admiration and gratitude. No terms were sufficiently strong to convey their admiration of his daring. Among the passengers were several members of Congress who proposed mentioning the incident to Congress, for they believed that body would reward Joseph's conduct by some public act. With this object in view they asked for his name, and were doubtless dumbfounded to learn that they had been saved from their imminent peril by the courage of the Mormon Prophet. At any rate the profusion of thanks and admiration was stayed, "and," says Joseph, "I heard no more of their praise, gratitude or reward." Need one stop to moralize on the littleness of man when he allows prejudice to dictate his action instead of reason?

It was on the twenty-eighth of November, 1839, that Joseph and Judge Elias Higbee arrived in Washington, and took up their abode at an unpretentious boarding house, on the corner of Missouri and Third Streets. They were very much cramped on account of means, as the people they represented were poor in this world's goods, and unable to supply the means necessary to enable their delegates to indulge in the luxurious style of living usually adopted by those who go to the seat of government on special missions.

The day following his arrival, Joseph obtained an interview with President Martin Van Buren, who had been elected to the presidency by the Democratic party. I give Joseph's own account of this visit to President Van Buren, that our readers may judge of the impression he made upon the Prophet, and what the Prophet thought of Congress generally:

On Friday, the twenty-ninth, we proceeded to the house of the President. We found a very large and splendid palace, surrounded with a splendid enclosure, decorated with all the fineries and elegancies of the world. We went to the door and requested to see the President, when we were immediately introduced into an upper apartment, where we met the President, and were introduced into his parlor, where we presented him with our letters of introduction. As soon as he had read one of them, he looked upon us with a kind of half frown and said: "What can I do? I can do nothing for you! If I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole State of Missouri."^[1]

I cannot determine whether it was on the occasion of this visit that President Van Buren made use of the expression, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you," or whether he so expressed himself at some subsequent meeting. But under date of February 6th, 1840, Joseph remarks, in speaking of his mission to Washington:

During my stay I had an interview with Martin Van Buren, the President, who treated me very insolently, and it was with great reluctance he listened to our message, which, when he heard, he said: "Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. If I take up for you, I shall lose the vote of Missouri." His whole course went to show that he was an office-seeker, that self-aggrandizement was his ruling passion, and that justice and righteousness were no part of his composition.

As this language is somewhat different to that reported by Joseph on the occasion of his first visit to the President, I am inclined to the opinion that the language attributed to him in the latter quotation was used at some subsequent meeting to the first. I again quote from Joseph's letter to Hyrum:

Now we shall endeavor to express our feelings and views concerning the President, as we have been eye-witness to his majesty. He is a small man, sandy complexion, and ordinary features, with frowning brow, and considerable body, but not well proportioned as to his arms and legs, * * * and in fine, to come directly to the point, he is so much of a fop or a fool (for he judged our cause before he knew it), we could find no place to put truth into him. We do not say the Saints shall not vote for him, but we do say boldly, that we do not intend he shall have our votes.

Joseph speaks very highly of the senators and representatives from Illinois, who rendered him some considerable assistance in getting a hearing before a congressional committee, but he was not favorably impressed with congressmen or their conduct on the whole. He says:

For a general thing there is but little solidity and honorable deportment among those who are sent here to represent the people, but a great deal of pomposity and show. * * * There is such an itching disposition to display their oratory on the most trivial occasions, and so much etiquette, bowing and scraping, twisting and turning, to make a display of their witticism, that it seems to us rather a display of folly and show, more than substance and gravity, such as becomes a great nation like ours. However, there are some exceptions.

After the meeting with the President, a meeting with the Illinois delegation in Congress was arranged, to take into consideration the best means of getting the wrongs of the Saints before Congress. This meeting took place on the sixth of December. A Mr. Robinson of that delegation, whether a member of the House or Senate I do not know, took a stand against the Saints presenting any claims to be liquidated by the United States; but Joseph contended against him, and presented the constitutional rights of the people, and Mr. Robinson promised to reconsider the subject, and at the meeting the next day it was decided that a memorial and petition be drawn in concise form and presented by Judge Young, who had taken a lively interest in the cause of the Saints. At this stage of the proceedings, Joseph and Judge Higbee learned that it was necessary to have more positive testimony on the subject in hand, so that they sent to Nauvoo and a very large number of affidavits were taken and forwarded to Washington to sustain the statements to be presented to Congress.

The petition presented to Congress related the outrages committed against the Saints at considerable length, from the commencement of difficulties in Jackson County, in the autumn of 1833, until their final expulsion from the State in the winter of 1838-9; and made emphatic the infamy of Governor Boggs' exterminating orders, which gave the coloring of authority for the action of the State mob-militia. They said in their statement of wrongs that if given an opportunity they could prove every allegation they made against the State of Missouri. And that "neither the Mormons as a body, nor as individuals of that body, had been guilty of any offense against the laws of Missouri, or of the United States: but their only offense had been their religious opinions."

In conclusion the petition represents that for the wrongs endured—

The Mormons ought to have some redress; yet how and where shall they seek and obtain it?

Your Constitution guarantees to every citizen, even the humblest, the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. It promises to all their religious freedom, the right to worship God beneath their own vine and fig tree, according to their own conscience. It guarantees to all the citizens of the several States the right to become citizens of any one of the States, and to enjoy all the rights and immunities of the citizens of the State of his adoption. Yet of all these rights have the Mormons been deprived. They have, without a cause, without a trial, been deprived of life, liberty and property. They have been persecuted for their religious opinions. They have been driven from the State of Missouri at the point of the bayonet, and prevented from enjoying and exercising the rights of citizens of the State of Missouri. It is the theory of our laws, that for the protection of every legal right, there is a legal remedy. What, then, we would ask, is the remedy for the Mormons? Shall they appeal to the legislature of the State of Missouri for redress? They have done so. They have petitioned, and these petitions have been treated with silence and contempt. Shall they apply to the federal courts? They were, at the time, citizens of the State of Missouri. Shall they apply to the courts of the State of Missouri? Whom shall they sue? The order for their destruction, their extermination, was granted by the executive of the State of Missouri. Is not this a plea of justification for the loss of individuals, done in pursuance of the order? If not, before whom shall the Mormons institute a trial? Shall they summon a jury of the individuals who composed the mob? An appeal to them were in vain. They dare not go to Missouri to institute a suit, their lives would be in danger.

For ourselves we see no redress, unless it be awarded by the Congress of the United States. And we here make our appeal as American citizens, as Christians, and as men—believing the high sense of justice which exists in your honorable bodies, will not allow such oppression to be practiced upon any portion of the citizens of this vast republic with impunity, but that some measure which your wisdom may dictate, may be taken, so that the great body of people who have been thus abused, may have redress for the wrongs which they have suffered.

The statement of wrongs and petition for their redress was introduced into the Senate by Judge Young, and referred to the committee on judiciary of which General Wall was chairman.

At this stage of the proceedings Joseph left Washington and went to Philadelphia, where he labored in the ministry among the Saints; but Judge Elias Higbee was left in Washington to look after the interest of the petitioners before the Senate committee. The subject was held under advisement and discussed occasionally, until the fourth of March, 1840, when the committee reported. That report was of a character to crush forever the hopes of obtaining, at the hands of the general government, any redress for the outrages perpetrated against them in Missouri. The report said that after full examination and consideration, the committee unanimously concurred in the opinion: "That the case presented for their investigation is not such a one as will justify or authorize any interposition of this government."

They stated that the wrongs complained of were not alleged to have been committed by officers of the United States; that the charges were all against the citizens and authorities of the State of Missouri; that the petitioners were citizens or inhabitants of Missouri; that the grievances complained of were committed within the territory of Missouri; and for these reasons the Senate judiciary committee did "not consider themselves justified in inquiring into the truth or falsehood of facts charged in the petition." The committee represented that if the charges were true, then the petitioners must seek redress in the courts of judicature, either of Missouri or of the United States, whichever might have jurisdiction in the case. "Or," said the report, "the petitioners may, if they see proper, apply to the justice and magnanimity of the State of Missouri—an appeal which the committee feel justified in believing will never be made in vain by the injured or oppressed." The report said that it could not be presumed that a State wanted either the power or lacked the disposition to redress the wrongs of its own citizens, committed within its own territory, "whether they proceed from the lawless acts of her officers or any other person."

The report closed by asking the passage of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee on the judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the memorial in this case; and that the memorialists have leave to withdraw the papers which accompany their memorial.

The resolution was passed without dissent, and thus the appeal to Congress for redress of the outrages committed against the Saints by Missouri ended.

At a conference of The Church held in April following, a number of resolutions were adopted, regretting and condemning the action of the Senate judiciary committee, and approving the course pursued by their delegation to Congress, Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Elias Higbee, and requesting them to continue their exertions to obtain redress for a suffering people as opportunities became more favorable for such efforts, and if at last all hopes of obtaining satisfaction for the injuries done us be entirely blasted, that they then "appeal our case to the Court of Heaven, believing that the Great Jehovah, who rules over the destiny of nations, and who notices the falling sparrows, will undoubtedly redress our wrongs, and ere long avenge us of our adversaries."

Footnotes

1. Letter to Hyrum Smith, Dec. 5, 1839.