CHAPTER VI.

THE POLITICAL PUZZLE (_continued_).

THE POSSIBLE REMEDIES--The military remedy--The Government responsible for the situation in Utah--The disfranchisement of polygamists--Federal trustees for the Mormon Church corporation--Confiscation of unlawful funds--False statements about Mormons--Letters from the two Bancrofts--The dissolution of the Emigrating Fund Company--The Federal Commission remedy--The Woodburn bill, or Idaho statute.

The question at once arises, What remedies should we adopt to get rid of this political evil--this _imperium in imperio_. The moral, the legal, and the military are open to our choice.

There are some who think that the evil is so great and the danger to our republican institutions so threatening as that there can be no adequate remedy short of THE MILITARY. Such a remedy, they acknowledge, would be severe, but the offence they consider as great beyond parallel, and the exigency most grave.

But for one I am an advocate of peace. If there is any other possible way of overcoming the evil, the use of the military arm should not be advocated, for it would necessarily result in numberless widows and orphans, and involve a heavy expense of blood and treasure. Bullets have no eloquence for the American people. The less gunpowder we can get along with the better. Our old wounds are not yet healed, and we are not hankering after a fresh fray. The order from headquarters which would summon the army to Utah would send a shiver through the heart of the nation. Suppression by force of bayonet is _the very last resort_, and we have not yet reached that point; and God forbid that we shall ever come to that!

Besides, let us ask the question, Who is responsible for the present state of affairs in Utah? We have already conclusively shown that the people and authorities of Illinois were responsible for their isolation in the West, since they drove them away from the surroundings that were calculated to modify, and finally to change, the drift of sentiment. Yes, it was on account of the un-Christian policy of the Illinoisans that we find the Mormons in a Western domain wide enough for a kingdom, and practically as far from the seat of authority as if responsible to a power beyond the sea.

And what was the policy pursued by the National Government toward them there? In the light of the fires kindled at Nauvoo, it would seem that statesmanship would have discovered a necessity for the adoption of measures calculated to restrain the evil tendencies of Mormonism and prevent it from developing into an organization which must inevitably sooner or later bring it into open conflict with the laws of the land. But where in the records of Congress or upon the statute-books is there any evidence of the really serious and statesmanlike consideration which this movement demanded? There were a people openly seeking a refuge where they would be free to disregard the popular opinion left behind them and to transgress the laws of the Government to which they owed allegiance. Were restrictive influences provided? Did the Government guard against the realization of the boasted dreams of extended domain and self-government entertained by this law-defying people by erecting guards against undue encroachment on the public domain and by providing a government with the necessary machinery for securing the impartial reign of law and order? Were provisions made which would encourage the immigration into this garden-land of any portion of the law-abiding thousands who were landing upon our shores, and whose presence in Utah would have been a bulwark against and an ultimate cure of the evils of Mormonism?

The facts are the best answers to these questions. There was a total absence of wise legislation at the beginning. Afterward, laws were enacted calculated to suit the use of those whom they should have controlled. Then its laws and authority were nullified with impunity; and now we find a people of law-breakers waxed strong and maintaining an attitude of defiance to authority in the face of anathemas from the pulpit and the press, and a hot fusilade of ineffective enactments from the halls of Congress. This is the outcome of national legislation for Utah during the last thirty-five years.

In view of the facts, we venture to affirm that the responsibility for the present condition of affairs does not wholly lie at the door of the Mormon Church, and much less at the doors of those who constitute the mass of the Mormon people. Justice demands that the responsibility he laid at the door of the Government and people of the United States.

And, surely, fire and sword are not the instruments with which to cure the evils which our own supineness, want of statecraft, and mis-legislation have permitted to poison the atmosphere. A Government which is itself largely responsible for the evil it seeks to cure is in duty bound to consider well and act wisely in the application of remedies.

But while the responsibility of the Government and people of the United States binds them to the application of a cure for the evils invited which shall not be intolerant or inhuman, it does not forbid the use of _effective remedial measures_ suggested by political expediency and in keeping with Christian charity. Still, it is well for us to remember that we are bound as Americans to deal with this pernicious system on _American principles_, and as Christians to deal with it on _Christian principles_.

The only measure which has yet been enacted looking to the cure of the political evil in Utah was _the disfranchisement of the polygamists_ by the Edmunds law of 1882; but although they have been disfranchised and rendered inelegible to office, they are only about 12,000--a very small fraction of the Mormons; and practically the old men, the Mormon leaders, who have controlled the affairs of Utah for thirty years, have simply abdicated in favor of their sons. Consequently the Territory is still under Mormon rule, and the priesthood have it in their iron grasp. This law is good so far as it goes, but does not go far enough to effectually cure the evil.

But other and more radical measures have been _proposed_.

By the new Edmunds Bill, which passed the Senate on January 8th, 1886, it is provided that _the President of the United States shall appoint fourteen trustees to administer the property, business affairs, and operations of the Mormon Church corporation_.

There is no doubt that this act strikes at the root of the political evil in Utah, for the vast wealth of the Mormon Church in the control of the priesthood is the foundation of their power. Nevertheless, the wisdom, constitutionality, and effectiveness of the act are very questionable.

In the first place, if that law could be enforced, _it would open wide the door of the meanest kind of political jobbery_. It is the most delicious bit of patronage to which we have been treated for a long time. Fourteen gentlemen are to be rewarded for distinguished party services by the appointment to handle Mormon money. This is a new kind of party plum, and, in my opinion, is simply infamous.

But, in the _second_ place, _there are grave doubts as to its constitutionality_. It is with much hesitation that we call in question the constitutionality of an act which is fathered by so conscientious a constitutionalist as Senator Edmunds and carried by a large majority in so conservative a body as the United States Senate. From _their_ standpoint, perhaps, it is constitutional; but from another standpoint it seems to be plainly unconstitutional. Congress is specifically prohibited from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Mormon Church is a religious organization, no matter how false its religion may be. The Edmunds Bill places it under the care of the Government of the United States, and provides for the administration of all its temporal affairs. Now, if this can be done respecting the Mormon Church, it can be done respecting the Catholic Church or any one of the many Protestant establishments in our land. And who can doubt that if all the vast property, real and personal, of the Catholic Church were taken possession of by the Government, and its management placed in the hands of fourteen trustees appointed by the President--who can doubt that it would prohibit materially the free exercise of that religion by its millions of communicants in this country? Clearly, then, the attempt to control the Mormon Church corporation by Government officials is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and entirely foreign to the spirit of American institutions. If the United States once enters upon the business of administering church property, the Mormons may not be the last victims.

Besides, if Congress has the right to appoint trustees of a religious corporation in the Territories, then the State Legislatures would have the right to appoint similar trustees in the States, and there would be nothing to prevent a legislative body governed by infidels from putting all church property into secular hands, or a Protestant or a Roman Catholic legislative body from dealing in a similar manner with the trustees of churches of an opposite faith. And, therefore, we regard this proposed act to place the control of the Mormon Church property into hands antagonistic to its spirit as a most dangerous departure from American principles.

But, in the _third_ place, _the act would, in all probability, be ineffective_. It is precisely what the rules of blood and iron in Germany under the inspiration of Bismarck attempted to do with the Catholic Church a few years ago. Bismarck said just what Senator Edmunds said: "We do not propose to prohibit anybody from believing in and practising the faith of the Catholic Church, but the Government of Germany intends to take charge of all its temporal affairs--to appropriate its property and administer it as we see fit to do." But there in Germany, where the power of the Government is absolute, this was found impossible.

And if impossible there, it will be doubly so here. Very likely if this proposition should become a law, and trustees be sent into the Territory, they would find themselves mere official ornaments without anything to do, for they would find no funds of which to take possession. The Mormons say that whatever property their Church has is owned and held, just as the property of the Presbyterian or Methodist Church, by the respective congregations. Formerly its property, real and personal, was held as that of the Catholic Church is--by a trustee in trust, and administered in the same way. The President of the Church, like the bishop, was the nominal owner, but held it in trust for the various congregations or parishes; but the Mormon Church authorities have determined that the property should be held and administered by and for each respective congregational or ward organization; and so you see that if trustees were appointed _they would likely find that the Mormon Church Corporation had no funds_.

Along with this enactment, there is another which provides for _the confiscating of the funds unlawfully gathered by the Mormon Church_.

Now, this act is not open to the same constitutional objection that the preceding is. It is a legal proposal, for only $50,000 can be held by any religious organization free from taxation; but its wisdom, justice, and practicability are very doubtful.

Its execution would be exceedingly difficult, so that not many honorable men would be willing to take the position of trustees of the funds which such a measure would remove from Mormon hands. The difficulty of separating the funds unlawfully gathered by the Mormon Church from those which justly belong to it would be very great, if not insuperable. Hence it would be very hard to defend such a measure from the serious charge of arbitrary interference with the rights of property.

It cannot be defended at all, unless it is put on the ground that the Mormon people, by continued hostility to the Government, have forfeited all political rights of every kind--even the right of property. It cannot be defended on the basis of justice at all. It looks to us to be a proposed theft in the name and under the authority of law.

But, as has been said before, in all probability if this measure should become a law, the trustees would find no funds at all; for they could easily be transferred (nominally at least) to private parties.

Just here let me say that the people should be on their guard as to what they believe concerning the Mormons and the wealth of their Church. Charges are made that have no foundation whatever in truth, and small and trivial circumstances are so exaggerated and warped that they appear as crooked monstrosities, and are presented to the world as common Mormon occurrences.

A great deal that is said and published about the large amount of funds in the hands of the Mormon leaders, and the use to which they are put, has not a scintilla of truth in it, although the persons who publish it by word or pen, being misinformed, thoroughly believe it themselves. Thus, in one of the most reliable missionary magazines in our land, in May, 1885, it was stated on the best authority that the Mormons had a large corruption fund, and as a sample of the purposes to which it is put by them, it gave the following instance: "When Bancroft, the historian, was in Utah recently, he was told that if he would write certain things in his history of Utah, they would take two hundred and forty complete sets of his works, which would give him $40,000."

The writer determined to use that statement as _a test case_. He, thinking that the greatest American historian, George Bancroft, was referred to, sent him a letter of inquiry as to the truth of the statement, and the following was his reply:

"1623 H STREET, WASHINGTON, D. C., February 3, 1886.

"_Rev. R. W. Beers, Elkton, Md._

"SIR: Yours of February 2d is received. I am astonished that you should attribute to me anything so false as that I have been in Utah, and all that follows. You ought not to have needed to ask anybody about falsehoods so palpable.

"Very respectfully, "GEORGE BANCROFT."

But how should any of the great number of people throughout our land who read the missionary magazine where that statement occurred know that he had not been in Utah, and that the statement was false?

Then the writer, knowing of another great historian Bancroft, Mr. H. H. Bancroft, the Pacific coast historian, made the same inquiry of him, and received the following reply:

"SAN FRANCISCO, February 15, 1886.

"_Rev. R. W. Beers._

"MY DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter of the 8th inst., I would say that the Mormons never asked me to insert anything in my history of Utah, and never offered to take any copies of the work.

"Very respectfully, "H. H. BANCROFT."

The writer then directed an inquiry to the person in Salt Lake City from whom the statement in the magazine claimed to have been made, and asked him his authority for his statement. The answer was: "The Bancroft alluded to by me is H. H. Bancroft, the Pacific coast historian. His agent told me the Mormons had agreed to take two hundred and forty sets of his complete works in thirty-eight volumes, the gross amount of which (not the net amount) would be about $40,000, if he would publish a certain kind of history of Utah. Since Bancroft is a millionaire, the Mormon offer was not very tempting."

But H. H. Bancroft flatly denies that any such offer was made him, and the statement must clearly be pronounced untrue. And yet the person who made the published statement was one of the leading Christian men of Utah, desirous of disseminating nothing but the truth. He was misinformed, whether intentionally or not.

There is a deep-seated prejudice against the Mormons in the breasts of many in our land, which gives rise to many charges against them which have no basis of truth whatever. We must, therefore, be on our guard, and not believe quite everything that is published against them. Mr. A. M. Gibson, legal adviser of the Mormon people at the national capital, says that the reputed wealth of the Mormon Church amounting to millions "is all bosh;" that "the Incorporated Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is actually in debt to-day, and is a borrower of money." If that is the case, surely if the trustees were appointed according to the new Edmunds Bill, they wouldn't have many funds to handle.

Another measure to break the political power of the priesthood proposed in the new Edmunds Bill is to stop the importing of converts from abroad by _abolishing the so-called Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company and appropriating its surplus property to educational purposes_.

This seems to me to have not a scintilla of justice about it. The emigration fund was originated by people who had been assisted to emigrate to Utah, dedicating the repayment of the money advanced to them to assist others in the same way. It was an entirely voluntary contribution. I cannot see what right the United States has to intervene to destroy an immigration company, if it is legally conducted, simply because the religious sentiments of the Mormons are obnoxious to the people of the United States. If anything is settled in American national life, it is that no man shall be called to account for his religious opinions. And so this proposed act must be an arbitrary interference with the rights of property. If Congress has the right to dissolve an Emigrating Company and use its surplus property for educational purposes, then a Socialistic State Legislature would have the right to dissolve a railroad corporation, pay its debts, and take possession of its surplus for the common benefit; and this, surely, is a socialistic doctrine which the great majority of the American people are not yet prepared to accept.

Besides, it would be _ineffective_. The attorney-general would doubtless find no funds to handle. The Mormons say that the emigration fund practically ceased to exist years ago. The emigration of Mormons now, they say, is the result of their own saving, with such assistance as their friends and relatives in the United States give them; and consequently, although the Emigration Company would be abolished, missionaries would continue to go every year to foreign countries and land converts by the thousands upon our shores and take them to Utah and other Territories to strengthen the power of the priesthood.

Even if all of the measures mentioned thus far as contained in the new Edmunds Bill were enacted, the great political evil now in Utah would remain. The Territory would still be in the hands of the Mormons, and consequently in the hands of the priesthood.

Another radical measure has been proposed, and was strongly advocated by ex-Governor Murray and many leading Gentiles of Salt Lake City, and was recommended by ex-President Arthur. The measure proposed is _the abolition of all Territorial government and the instituting of a government by a Federal Commission, appointed by the President, of nine persons resident in the Territory_.

It is claimed that, if this commission was composed of upright, patriotic, and practical men, identified as citizens with the interests of the Territory, they would give an immense impetus to business of all kinds and induce enterprising men to settle there, because there would then be an assurance that Utah was to be in truth an _American_ territory.

Now, there is no doubt at all that that would be an _effective_ remedy for the political evil in Utah. The only questions to consider are: Is it _lawful_? Is it _just_? Is it _wise_?

Senator Edmunds has declared it _unconstitutional_; and although there are precedents in its favor, yet its constitutionality may well be questioned. Certainly the Territory would not have a representative form of government under a Legislative Commission. The government would be an oligarchy.

Besides, not _all_ the residents of Utah are disloyal in sentiment and feeling. There are at least fifteen thousand, and probably thirty thousand, loyal citizens; but the proposed plan confuses the innocent with the guilty, and so _cannot be defended from the standpoint of justice_. ALL are disfranchised, Mormons and Gentiles, alike.

And, then, it is _not wise_. The Mormons in all likelihood would not obey the local laws passed by such a commission, because they would have no voice in their making. They would not regard them as entitled to respect, and there would as a result be more internal disorder and disquiet than there is now, so that immigration of peaceable citizens would be checked rather than encouraged.

Then, it lacks wisdom when we look at the evil to be overcome. The political evil to be overcome is the existence of a non-republican government in Utah. The government now there, though _republican in form, in substance is oligarchical_, the real rulers being the triumvirate who constitute the First Presidency of the Mormon Church. The problem is, how to remove that un-republican oligarchy and set up a republican government there as elsewhere. Now, see what is proposed! _A legislative commission of nine appointed by the President!_ Why, the present government there is more republican than that proposed. The government now in existence is republican _in form_ at least, and the officers are elected by the majority of the people and represent them truly. But the Legislative Commission would be not even republican in form. The people would have nothing whatever to do with their appointment--not even the Gentiles. That government would be thoroughly undemocratic both in form and substance; and even if it would truly represent the _Gentile_ population, it would only represent a minority of citizens, and consequently would be undemocratic; for the fundamental doctrine of democracy is that the majority should rule the minority. As a proper substitute, then, for the present form of government in Utah, the Legislative Commission must be regarded as strikingly wanting. It does not solve the problem. It is unwise, inexpedient, and unnecessary.

Another law, which is far more just than the preceding, has been proposed recently by ex-Governor Murray (in his last official report), and was strongly advocated by Joseph Cook in his Boston Monday Lecture delivered February 8th, 1886. It was also introduced into the House of Representatives on April 1st, 1886, by Mr. Woodburn, of Nevada. It is known as the "Idaho Statute," because it has been in operation in the Territory of Idaho. _It disfranchises every man and woman who believes, teaches, or practices bigamy or polygamy, or who belongs to any organization or association which believes, teaches, or encourages the practice of bigamy or polygamy, and renders all such ineligible to any office._ That law would only disfranchise the Mormons, the disloyal element in the Territory, and would put Utah in the hands of the law-abiding citizens alone.

But it is open to the grave constitutional objection of interference with a religious belief. Those who simply _believe in polygamy_ would be punished by this enactment; but our Government, whether national or State, has no right to inquire into _the beliefs_ of our citizens. It is only when they carry their beliefs into _actual practice_ of that which is contrary to the laws of the land that our Government can rightfully punish them or deprive them of civil rights.