Part 5 (1/2)

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 p.r.o.nounced 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 b.r.e.a.s.t.s 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 _abolis.h.i.+ng 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 a.s.sisted to emigrate to Utah, dedicating the repayment of the money advanced to them to a.s.sist 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 a.s.sistance 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 sh.o.r.es 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 inst.i.tuting 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 a.s.surance 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 _unconst.i.tutional_; and although there are precedents in its favor, yet its const.i.tutionality 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 pa.s.sed by such a commission, because they would have no voice in their making. They would not regard them as ent.i.tled 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 const.i.tute 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 subst.i.tute, 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 a.s.sociation 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 const.i.tutional 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.

CHAPTER VII.

THE POLITICAL PUZZLE (_concluded_).

Objections to proposed remedies--_Gladstone_ on ”Coercion”--A NEW PLAN ADVOCATED--_The Abolition of Female Suffrage_--_A National Colonization Scheme_--Natural resources of Utah--Superiority of the colonization plan over others--_The establishment of National Free Schools_--Ignorance the keystone of Mormon despotism--Public schools in Utah used for Mormon purposes--Proposed Federal Superintendent of schools in Utah--Territorial schools too few--Necessity of Government action--Prejudice disarmed by this plan--THE POLITICAL PUZZLE SOLVED.

All the measures that have yet been proposed are acknowledged to be unusual and extraordinary, and are advocated only on the ground of _necessity_, which William Pitt called ”the argument of tyrants.” It is said that the facts to be dealt with are unprecedented. An insolent anti-American empire has for years been growing in the body politic of this country, and it must be overcome _at all hazards_. But let us pause a moment. Is not that the great doctrine of the Jesuit--”_The end justifies the means_”? That is an exceedingly dangerous doctrine to follow. No, fellow-Americans, we _must_ not, we _dare_ not, allow our righteous, pa.s.sionate fervor against Mormon disloyalty to carry us so far as to violate fundamental principles of the American Const.i.tution. Whatever we do, we must cling to the traditions of the past, and not depart from the spirit of our cherished American principles.

Besides, all of these measures are open to the objection of _persecution_ from a Mormon point of view. Threats of b.l.o.o.d.y resistance, especially to a Legislative Commission, have been made by Mormons even of quiet disposition. Now, if the evil can in any way be overcome without persecution, that way is by all means to be preferred.

Utah may well be called ”_The American Ireland_.” Ireland is practically in rebellion against the Government of Great Britain, and she bases her rebellion on wrongs and abuses. Utah is in practical rebellion against our Government, and bases her disloyalty on the ground of injustice and abuse.

Coercive measures have long been tried with Ireland and have been of no avail; and now Gladstone, the greatest living statesman, advocates pacific measures. When he introduced his Irish Home Rule measure into the House of Commons on the 8th of April, 1886, the most memorable day in the history of modern English Parliaments, in his great speech (confessedly one of the greatest efforts of his life) he said: ”_Coercion, unless stern and unbending, and under an autocratic government, must always fail_. Such coercion England should never resort to until every other means has failed. The basis of the whole mischief is the fact that the law is discredited in Ireland. It comes to the Irish people with a foreign aspect.” So we have tried prohibitory and repressive methods with the Mormons for thirty years, and they have failed. _They will fail to the bitter end._ The longer they are tried, the worse the result. They will only increase their enmity to the Government, heal over their internal dissensions, bind them the closer together, and wed them more firmly to their peculiar beliefs, which have made them objects of persecution.

History can teach us that; and so we believe that it is time to inaugurate a change--viz., to work on the Christian plan, to overcome evil with good.