The Apostles Again Preside

At the death of President Brigham Young, there was rejoicing among the enemies of the Church, who thought it was due to his strong personality and force of character that “Mormonism” endured. They did not, and could not, comprehend that the Church had been restored for the last time, and was destined to endure forever with the stamp of divine approval upon it, for the Power by which it was upheld was higher and greater than the personality of any man. The Lord Jesus Christ was its founder, and he had promised to protect and watch over it unto the end.

The death of President Young again made the council of Twelve Apostles the presiding quorum of the Church, and as such they were unanimously sustained at the October conference in 1877, with President John Taylor at their head. President John Taylor was born at Milnthorpe, Westmoreland, England, November 1, 1808. About the year 1828 he left his native land and came to Canada, where he received the Gospel in 1836, through the preaching of Elder Parley P. Pratt. He was called to the apostleship in December, 1838, and was actively engaged in the ministry from that time forth. He filled numerous missions and opened the door for the preaching of the Gospel in France in 1850. He superintended the translation of the Book of Mormon in French and German, and was engaged in literary work at home and abroad covering a period of many years. President Taylor was a man of high integrity and strong conviction. He was painfully wounded in Carthage jail—four balls entered his body— at the time of the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith. Under his administration the Church grew and expanded notwithstanding the fierce and cruel persecution through which it was forced to go, when the government of the United States, without mercy, was arrayed against it.

The Twelve Apostles continued to act as the Presidency of the Church until October, 1880, a little more than three years, when the First Presidency again was organized.

The Decision in the Reynolds Case

The case of Elder George Reynolds, which had been appealed to the supreme court of the United States in 1875, was argued before that body in November 1878. January 6, 1879, that court handed down a decision unanimously confirming the sentence of the courts of Utah, and also declaring the anti-bigamy law of 1862 to be constitutional. This decision was of the utmost concern to the Latter-day Saints, who were confident that the supreme court, in justice, could not give confirmation to a law which they sincerely believed to be an infringement of their religion.

President Taylor’s Comment

President John Taylor, convinced that this decision was an assault on the exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, stated in an interview and in answer to questions from O.J. Hollister, United States internal revenue collector in Utah, the following:

“When the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, those high contracting parties did positively agree that they would not interfere with religious affairs. Now, if our marital relations are not religious, what is? This ordinance of marriage was a direct revelation to us through Joseph Smith, the Prophet. You may not know it, but I know that this is a revelation from God and a command to his people, and therefore it is my religion. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any right to interfere with my religious views, and in doing it they are violating their most sacred obligations....

“We acknowledge our children; we acknowledge our wives; we have no mistresses. We had no prostitution until it was introduced by monogamy, and I am now told that these other diabolical deeds are following in its train. The courts have protected these people in their wicked practices. We repudiate all such things, and hence I consider that a system that will enable a man to carry out his professions, and that will enable him to acknowledge his wife or wives and acknowledge and provide for his children and wives, is much more honorable than that principle which violates its marital relations and, whilst hypocritically professing to be true to its pledges, recklessly violates the same and tramples upon every principle of honor, which sits down and coolly and deliberately decides how many children shall be murdered and how many shall live.”

An Unjust Sentence

The sentence including “hard labor” pronounced against Elder Reynolds was in excess of the law. On that ground the attempt was made to have the case reopened and the proceedings quashed, but the supreme court of the United States refused to issue such an order. It did, however, remand the case to the supreme court of Utah, with instructions “to cause the sentence of the district court to be set aside, and a new one entered on the verdict in all respects like that before imposed, except so far as it requires the imprisonment to be at hard labor.” A petition from over thirty thousand citizens of the territory, asking for the pardon of the defendant was forwarded to President Rutherford B. Hayes, who ignored it.

The Defendant Imprisoned

The defendant, George Reynolds, was re-sentenced June 14, 1879, and two days later he left Salt Lake City, for Lincoln, Nebraska, in charge of George A. Black and William T. Shaughnessy, deputy marshals, to serve his sentence in the Nebraska penitentiary. He served less than a month in that prison when he was brought back to Utah and placed in the local penitentiary where he was confined until he had served out his sentence, from June 1879 to January 1881, receiving the remission of his fine and the reduction for good behavior of one hundred and forty-four days. While confined he taught school, his pupils being the inmates of the prison. So successful was he that the warden remarked of him: “Reynolds is worth more than all the guards in keeping order among the prisoners.”

Bitter Threats Against the Church

The bitterness of the anti-“Mormon” press of Salt Lake City, and the broadcast circulation of falsehoods by the enemies of the Church commenced an agitation throughout the nation that was to result in special legislation against the “Mormon” people intended to encompass their destruction. Ministers of the Protestant churches in the United States took up the hue and cry. Many bitter expressions were heard in condemnation of the Latter-day Saints, and threats were made against their peace and safety. A sample of the bloodthirsty utterances is that given by Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage in the Brooklyn Tabernacle, shortly after the death of President Young, as follows: “Now my friends—now, at the death of the Mormon Chieftain, is the time for the United States government to strike. They are less organized than they have been, and less than they will be. If these Mormons will not submit to authority, let so much of their rich lands be confiscated for the wants of the government as will be sufficient for their subjugation. If the government of the United States cannot stand the expense, let Salt Lake City pay for it. (Applause.) Turn their vast temple into an arsenal. Set Phil Sheridan after them. (Immense applause.) Give them enough troops and he will teach all Utah that forty wives is thirty-nine too many. I call upon the Church of Jesus Christ to pray for the overthrow of this iniquity.”

Address of Anti-“Mormon” Women

In November, 1878, the Gentile women in Salt Lake City met in the Congregational Church, to the number of about two hundred, and drew up an address to the wife of the President of the United States, denouncing plural marriage and its practice in the name of religion. They called upon the “Christian women of the United States” to aid them in the arrest of “the progress of evil,” and to delay the admission of Utah into statehood until this was accomplished. Congress was also memorialized and circular letters were forwarded to the clergy with the request that they be presented to their congregations for signatures and then sent to the congressmen of their respective districts.

“Mormon” Women Reply

A counter mass meeting of the women of the Church was held November 16, 1878, in which they declared they had been misjudged and misrepresented to the nation in regard to their most sacred rights. They invited the government to make an impartial investigation of their cause.

Falsehoods of the Press

Nearly every paper in the United States devoted space to the “Mormon” question, and almost without exception, with bitter denunciation and suggestions to Congress of the most drastic nature. The Salt Lake Tribune did not hesitate to circulate the most contemptible falsehoods that these fires of hate might be kept burning.

The Miles Case

Another cause of agitation, and one that went a long way towards congressional action of the severest nature against the practice of plural marriage, was the case of John H. Miles. This case ran a course of about three years, having been carried before the supreme court of the United States. Miles was arrested in October, 1878, on complaint of Carrie Owen Miles, his wife. She accused Miles of having married Emily Spencer of St. George, on the same day, and a little before her own ceremony was performed. She was not present at the ceremony, but testified that during a reception held that evening Emily Spencer was referred to as Mrs. Miles. The case was taken before Judge Emerson, in the Third district court, in April, 1879, where it was conceded that the ceremony had been performed between John H. Miles and Carrie Owen, and the defense objected to the testimony of the complainant on the ground that a wife could not testify against her husband. The marriage of Miss Spencer was not admitted. However, the evidence was taken and Miles was “found guilty” and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and serve a term of five years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of Utah which affirmed the decision, and the case was then taken to the supreme court of the United States. The end of the matter came in 1881, when the supreme court handed down a decision stating that an error had been committed in the trial court by permitting Caroline Owen Miles to give evidence against Miles, since the law in Utah provided that a wife could not legally testify against her husband, or a husband against his wife. The marriage with Emily Spencer not having been admitted, and not having been proved, was the only issue in the trial. The decision was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. The case was dropped, as the United States attorney felt that there could be no conviction. However, this case helped to stir the country to such a pitch that legislation was enacted repealing the Utah law.

Daniel H. Wells Before the Court

While the trial of John H. Miles was before the court, Caroline Owen Miles gave a purported description of the apparel worn by those who passed through the endowment house.¹ The prosecution attempted to show that such apparel was worn by those who went there to be married. Daniel H. Wells, who had performed the ceremony for Miles and Carrie Owen, was called to the stand and questioned by Attorney Van Zile, who asked him to describe the dress worn in that building. This he declined to do. Judge Emerson decided that the question was proper, and as the witness still refused, he was placed in the custody of the marshal, with instructions that he should appear in the court the next day, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.

Imprisonment of Daniel H. Wells

The next day, May 3, 1879, President Wells, with his attorney, appeared before Judge Emerson and stated his willingness to answer the questions, if they should be put in a proper way. The questions were put to him again, but purposely in such a way that he felt it his duty not to answer them. He declared that he was under sacred obligation to preserve secret what he was asked to reveal. The court insisted that he should answer, and the witness replied: “I consider a person who reveals the sacred ceremonies of the endowment house a falsifier and a perjurer; and it has been and is a principle of my life never to betray a friend, my religion, my country, or my God. It seems to me that this is sufficient reason why I should not be held in contempt.”

The judge held that the witness was in contempt for not answering, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for two days. President Wells was immediately placed in the hands of the United States marshal and taken to the penitentiary where he served his brief term of confinement.

A Public Protestation

The action of Judge Emerson caused great indignation, and the Latter-day Saints were aroused. A public demonstration in protest of the action was planned, and many people gathered from the surrounding counties as far north as Bear Lake and south as far as Juab. A procession of ten thousand formed and met President Wells at the Burton Farm, three miles south of the city, and marched through the streets to the tabernacle, which was thronged with people. The presence of the released prisoner was a signal for prolonged applause. Speeches were made, interspersed with music from several bands. As the procession marched through the city they carried banners with inscriptions among which were the following:

“If courts compel men to dishonor and forswear themselves, how can they expect perjurers to give truth in evidence?”

“We honor the law and its just administration, but we despise petty tyranny.”

“We will teach our children to be true to their country and their God; but to perjure themselves never! no never!”

“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we are answerable for them to our God.” —Thomas Jefferson.

“If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.” —Blackstone.

“God’s Law: Thou shalt not forswear Thyself; but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”

“Modern Law: Thou shalt forswear thyself, or go to prison.”

“When Free Masons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on Mormons; try the others first.”

“We venerate the Constitution, we honor the law, we respect the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary; we bow to the righteous mandates of the law, but we despise bigots, we execrate tyranny, and protest against intolerance from any source.”

Litigation over President Young’s Estate

In June, 1879, a few of the heirs of President Brigham Young, in opposition to all the rest, entered suit against the executors of the estate, claiming property held in the name of the late president as trustee-in-trust for the Church, as his personal property. The sum in litigation amounted to nearly one million dollars. Application was made for an injunction restraining the executors from further performance of their duties, and enjoining President John Taylor from disposing of any property received by him as trustee-in-trust. Judge Emerson granted the injunction and appointed William S. McCornick and United States Marshal Shaughnessy, non-“Mormons,” to take charge of all the property. President Taylor asked that the injunction be dissolved, and the order appointing the receivers be revoked, on the ground that the claims against the estate were “a bona fide existing indebtedness,” so recognized by the late president, who authorized in his will the settling of such claims by his executors.

Imprisonment of the Executors

A warrant was issued by Judge Boreman, who was most bitter against the Church, for the arrest of President Taylor and the executors, George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, Jr., and Albert Carrington. Showing that he had complied with the order of the court, President Taylor was discharged, but the executors were committed to the penitentiary, for refusing to furnish additional security, which was considered by them as nothing more or less than an attempt to levy blackmail. Their imprisonment extended from August 4 to 28, when they were released through the reversal of Judge Boreman’s decision by the supreme court of the territory— Judge Boreman dissenting.

Counter Suit and Settlement

A counter suit was brought against the heirs by the Church for the recovery of its property, The case came before Judge John A. Hunter, who had arrived in the territory the previous summer. The case was dismissed in October (1879), without coming to judgment, as the parties to the suit came to a mutual agreement. The litigant heirs, according to the agreement, were paid the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars and all charges were withdrawn. The receivers were dismissed. President Taylor presented the terms of the settlement before the general conference of the Church which convened two days after the decision was made, and it was endorsed by unanimous vote.

Secretary Evarts’ Circular Letter

William M. Evarts, secretary of state, in the cabinet of President Hayes, sent out a circular letter in October 1879, to the diplomatic officers of the United States in foreign countries, advising them that large numbers of persons from various lands were coming to the United States for the purpose of joining the “Mormons” in Utah; also that the marriage system of the “Mormons” was pronounced by the laws of the United States to be a crime against the statutes of the country. These immigrants, he said, came “to swell the numbers of the law-defying Mormons of Utah,” who were endeavoring to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating laws punishable by fine and penitentiary imprisonment. The representatives of the government abroad were instructed to “check the organization of these criminal enterprises,” by calling the attention of the several governments to the situation. This was to be in the interest “not merely of a faithful execution of the laws of the United States, but of the peace, good order and morality which are cultivated and sought to be promoted by all civilized countries.”

Condemnation of Evarts’ Course

It was a time when condemnation of the “Mormons” was a popular amusement in the world, but this letter of Secretary Evarts brought down on his head a storm of ridicule, even from those unfriendly to the Latter-day Saints, in this country and also in foreign lands. The London Times was very caustic in its treatment of the letter, and the New York Sun stated: “Now let Mr. Evarts instruct his diplomatic agents abroad to ask the foreign powers—as a favor and a friendly act towards the United States— to hang any of their subjects who may become murderers after their arrival in this country. The foreign powers are said to have been astonished by Mr. Evarts’ circular. They had reason to be amazed.”

The Murder of Joseph Standing

The continued publication of unfavorable articles in the press of the country concerning the Latter-day Saints, and the constant repetition of falsehoods emanating from the enemies of the Church at Salt Lake City—where most all the agitation originated—caused much bitterness throughout the country. The missionaries of the Church were sorely abused, especially in the Southern States, where many of them were stripped, tied to trees and brutally beaten by mobs, until the blood ran from their wounded bodies, and when released they were ordered from that part of the country on pain of death if they remained.

On the 21st of July, 1878, Elders Joseph Standing, twenty-five years of age, and Rudger Clawson, a youth of twenty-two, were surrounded by a mob at Varnal Station, Whitefield County, Georgia, and were taken to the woods apparently for the purpose of receiving a thrashing. Elder Standing at this juncture made some show of resistance when one of the mobbers fired at him. The ball passed through his left eye and ranging upward came out of the forehead. Immediately following this deed one of the gang, pointing at Elder Clawson, said, “Shoot that man!” It was a critical moment for the young elder, who turned and coolly faced the mob with folded arms and exclaimed, “Shoot!” His coolness seemed to unnerve the mob who lowered their guns. It was then suggested by one of the mobbers that Elder Standing had shot himself, although he was unarmed. Elder Clawson at his earnest solicitation was permitted to go after help, and while he was gone the fiends shot about twenty bullets into the body of the prostrate man, mostly into his face and neck, and so close that the wounds were powder burned.

The Coroner’s Verdict

An inquest was held and a verdict found in which David D. Nations, Jasper N. Nations, A.S. Smith, David Smith, Benj. Clark, William Nations, Andrew Bradley, James Fawcett, Hugh Blair, Joseph Nations, Jefferson Hunter and Mack McClure, who were seen by witnesses in the mob at the time of the killing, were accused of the crime.

“Not Guilty”

The guilty parties fled from Georgia. Three of them were captured and returned to the state, but were released on furnishing bail in the sum of five thousand dollars each. The grand jury found indictments against Jasper Nations for murder, against Bradley for manslaughter, and against Blair for riot. In October, 1879, their trial was held. Elder Clawson attended as a witness, and notwithstanding the positive nature of his testimony, and that of the other eye witnesses, all three defendants were acquitted. Elder John Morgan, who was presiding in the Southern States and who was present at the proceedings, sent a telegram to the Deseret News at the close of the trial of Jasper Nations, stating: “The old, old story. Verdict, not guilty!”

Notes