Chapter XVI: Foreword (2)

What shall the Americans of that Commonwealth do if the people of the United States do not heed their cry?

The vast majority of the Mormon people are law-abiding, industrious, sober, and thrifty. They make good citizens in every respect except as they are dominated by this monarchy, which speaks to them in the name of God and governs them in the spirit of Mammon. Any remedy for existing evils which would injure the mass of the Mormon people would be most deplorable. I believe that they would loosen the chains which they wear if it were possible. I think that many of them pay blood-money tithes simply to avoid social ostracism and business destruction. I believe that many of them do the political will of the church monarch because they are led to believe that the safety of the church monarchy is necessary in order that the mass may preserve the right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. The church monopoly, by its various agencies is usually able to uprear the injured and innocent mass of the Mormon people as a barrier to protect the members of that monarchy from public vengeance.

It is the duty of this great body--the Senate of the United States--to serve notice on this church monarch and his apostles that they must live within the law; that the nation is supreme; that the institutions of his country must prevail throughout the land; and that the compact upon which statehood was granted must be preserved inviolate.

May heaven grant that this may be effective and that the church monarchy in Utah may be taught that it must relinquish its grasp.

I would not, for my life, that injury should come to the innocent mass of the people of Utah; I would not that any right of theirs should be lost, but that the right of all should be preserved to all.

If the Senate will apply this remedy and the alien monarchy still proves defiant, it will be for others than myself to suggest a course of action consistent with the dignity of the country.

In the meantime we of Utah who have no sympathy with the-now clearly defined purpose of this church monopoly will wage our battle for individual freedom, to lift the State to a proud position in the sisterhood, to preserve the compact which was made with the country, believing that behind the brave citizens in Utah who are warring against this alien monarchy stands the sentiment and power of eighty two millions of our fellow-citizens.

II.

Foreword.

This speech was delivered in the Provo Tabernacle on the evening of March 14, 1905, in the presence of upwards of two thousand five hundred people, and the report of it was taken by Mr. Arthur Winter. When the speech was first published in full in the _Deseret Evening News_ of March 25, 1905, the following explanatory note preceded it by the writer:

A report of this speech in a local paper [the _Salt Lake Tribune_] contained many verbal inaccuracies and crudities which in many cases were the reporter's, not mine. It is too much to expect that extemporaneous speech will be free from verbal and rhetorical errors, and I do not claim that the speech as delivered at Provo was free from such defects. In the speech as here reported by Mr. Arthur Winter, some of these crudities have been eliminated so far as they could be and still retain the structure and spirit of what was said. One item has been added: a passage relating to the alleged threats against Gentile industries in the State of Utah.

Concerning the criticisms that have been made of this speech--one of which extended through seven columns of as vapid and flaccid an aggregation of words, words, words as it has ever been my lot to wade through--I only care to notice one, that is the alleged harshness of some of my utterances. The conclusion is reached that some of my words were unbecoming both my calling and the place in which they were delivered. In answer I only wish to say that the propriety of one's expressions is governed very largely by the task one has before him. Even the Son of God, when he had occasion to denounce falsehood and reprove deceivers, no longer used the gentle tones by which he comforted the sorrowful or encouraged those bowed down in weakness; but he used language suited to the task before him. To the scribes and Pharisees, who were hounding himself and his friends to their death, and as a preliminary to that purpose were seeking to embitter the minds of the populace, he said:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like
unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward,
but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within
ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and
Pharisees, hypocrites because ye build the tombs of the prophets,
and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had
been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers
with them in the blood of the Prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses
unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed
the Prophets. Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers. Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation
of hell?"

I think I have not gone beyond this worthy example in anything I have said in this speech; and for the sacredness of the building in which my remarks were made, I in no way feel that there was a desecration, since when the task before one is to defend the innocent against misrepresentation, and denounce calumniators, then "all place a temple, and all seasons summer."

II.

Answer to Kearns.

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: On the 28th day of February, last, the then senior senator from the State of Utah delivered an address in the senate chamber of the United States, in which an attack was made upon the Mormon Church and against the best interests of the State of Utah. The speech was cunningly planned and adroitly phrased; and with the prestige of a senator of the United States behind it, among the masses of the people of the United States, uninformed of the true conditions existing in Utah, its effect will be misleading and mischievous. It is because of these opinions that I have formed of the speech that I think it a proper subject for this occasion, that our own people, at least, should be put upon their guard against the mischievous effects of this deliverance.

I regret extremely that the speech was not answered upon the floor of the senate of the United States. The gentleman upon whom that duty properly rested may have had good and sufficient reasons for remaining silent. It is not for me to say. But when I think of the serious charges that are made, and the cunning with which those charges, false though they be, are sustained, I can conceive of no combination of circumstances that would justify the now senior senator from Utah for being silent on that occasion. The suggestion of friends may be a good thing to listen to sometimes; but occasions can arise--and this, in my judgment, was one of them--when the call of duty should lead one to reject the counsel of well-meaning but perhaps ill-informed friends, and the cold calculations of over caution. It might be possible, of course, that a reply such as one might desire to make, could not be made on the spur of the moment; but ten minutes devoted to denouncing the falsehoods of that speech, and the unmasking of the man who uttered it, would have had a beneficial effect upon the public mind, and would have been more effective than any reply that can now be made. Anything that may be said from this platform, or any other in Utah, or anything that may be said in the future upon the floor of the senate chamber, will not have the effect that an emphatic denial of the charges would have had while the gentleman who made them was still a senator of the United States.[A] That opportunity, however, is lost. All that may be done, here in Utah, at least, is to point out to our youth the untruthfulness of these charges, and disclose the sophistry by which an attempt is made to sustain them. I account myself fortunate in having an opportunity to undertake such a task before this magnificent assembly.

[Footnote A: For Senator Smoot it is said that he followed his advisors among the senators, and that the event of retaining his seat by a vote rejecting the resolution to declare that seat vacant, is a vindication of his silence. The senator is, of course, entitled to that view of the case, but to what extent retaining his seat was due to his silence in the foregoing occasion is a value that can never be determined; and it does not matter now that the event has ended so happily for the senator and for Utah.]

AUTHORSHIP OF THE KEARNS' SPEECH.

Before proceeding to the speech itself, I want to say a word or two in relation to its authorship. It will go without saying that the ex-senator who stands responsible for it is not its author. Those of us who chance to be acquainted with the dullness of his mind and the density of his ignorance know very well that his mind never conceived the speech; nor did he fashion the polished and falsely eloquent sentences devoted to so bad a cause. Those of us who served with him in the Constitutional convention of this state painfully remembering the very few occasions on which he sought to express himself upon the floor of that convention hall, can never believe for a moment that he is the author of the speech. Those who were present in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on the occasion when the President of the United States honored that city and the state with his presence, and who saw this now ex-senator when he addressed that assembly, with hands thrust deep into his pockets, with stomach thrown forward, and head thrown back, and in nasal tones only becoming a retired pugilist--and heard him say in the opening sentence of his speech, "We Americans ain't born to nuthin', but we git there just the same" (Laughter); and who had no better taste than to make the visit of the chief executive of this nation to our state the occasion of a partisan harangue, know very well that he is not the author of this senate speech. He is only the author of this speech in the sense that he has adopted it. This speech is his only in the sense that he bought it. I shall not undertake to describe all the contempt I feel for a man who occupies the high station of a senator of the United States, and who consents to repeat, parrot-like, the bought phrases fashioned by another mind. Jewelry in a swine's snout is as nothing to this.

THE BOUGHT FABRIC OF ANOTHER'S RHETORIC.

I glory in that pride, which would prefer to stand in tatters, though the biting winds of winter might nip one, rather than to be dressed in the cast-off clothing or the borrowed furs of a prince; so also I would glory in silence rather than to arise in my place in so august a body as the United States senate and repeat as mine the speech conceived and written by another, though its eloquence rivaled that of a Pitt, a Chatham or a Webster. Indeed the more eloquent the speech the deeper must be the embarrassment--the shame. But here I pause, though I had the language of a Solomon or a Shakespeare I should never be able to express my contempt for the senator who would consent to appear clothed in the borrowed or bought fabric of another's rhetoric. We may dismiss the ex-senator right here, so far as thinking that he had anything to do with this speech more than the reading of it.

I wish now to say a word in regard to the spirit in which I propose to discuss this speech. I believe in the amenities of debate. There is nothing quite so joyous as to witness a debate when the differences discussed are honest differences, when opponents are honorable and talented men. I think I may be pardoned, altogether excused, in fact, from any exhibition of egotism, if I say that I take some pride in the reputation I think I have in this state for fairness in debate, and respectful treatment of my opponents. But the amenities of debate do not require me to say that my opponent's statements are true when I know them to be false; or that his argument is good and sound when I know it to be the merest sophistry; or that his motives are patriotic when I know them to be selfish and revengeful. Therefore, when I meet and have to deal with such a speech as the one before me, it is not to be expected that I shall handle it with gloves, and I promise you I shall not.

THE QUESTION OF COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF UTAH AND THE UNITED STATES.

I now come to the speech itself; my reply will follow the order of the topics set forth in the speech, with very slight exceptions; and by reason of following the order of topics laid down in the speech, I come first of all to the consideration of the pledges under which Utah obtained statehood--the compact between the State of Utah and the United States.

Of that long conflict that raged in Utah from early days down to the year 1890 I need not speak. You are familiar with its history. You know that the foundation facts of that controversy are these: that the Latter-day Saints believed a revelation had been given in which was made known, first of all, the eternity of the marriage covenant, with the permission and I may say injunction, under certain circumstances, for good men to have a plurality of wives. You know of the successive enactments of Congress, made at the demand of sectarian clamor throughout the United States against this practice. You know how these successive acts brought to bear hardships upon the Church, until at last we were relieved from the responsibility and obligation of maintaining in practice that plural marriage system, by the issuance of the Manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff in 1890. You know upon that step being taken, that the bitterness of feeling that had hitherto existed subsided; and there began to be manifested a desire that the old Church and anti-Church political parties should be disbanded, and that here in Utah, as in the other states of the Union, the people should divide according to their political convictions to one or the other of the great national political parties. These movements finally resulted in the passage of an Enabling Act, authorizing the election of a Constitutional convention for the purpose of framing a state government. This convention met in the spring of 1895, and was the instrument through which so far as the people of Utah are concerned, the compact between the State of Utah and the United States was made.

When it is necessary to establish what a given compact is, instead of calling to mind this man's opinion, and that man's opinion of it, why not go to the compact itself, and after considering it give it a fair interpretation? That is the method of treatment that I have proposed to myself, and consequently I am going to that compact. The Enabling act contained this clause, which was the crystallized demand of the people of the United States upon the people of Utah:

"And said convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable,
without the consent of the United States and the people of said
state:

"First, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be
secure, and that no inhabitant of said state shall be molested in
person on account of his or her mode of religious worship; provided
that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

That is what the people of the United States demanded of the people of Utah through the voice of the national Congress--nothing more than that, nothing less than that. Polygamous or plural marriages are to be forever prohibited. That is the demand of the people of the United States.

That being the demand, what was the response to it on the part of the people of Utah, speaking through the Constitutional convention? This was the response:

ORDINANCE.

"The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent
of the United States and the people of the state:

"First, perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed.
No inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or
property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but
polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

You will observe that the convention incorporated in this provision the very language of the Enabling act.

That was the demand, and that the response to the demand. But it was not all of the response. There was something more. After this declaration had been made, towards the conclusion of the work of the convention, when that part of the Constitution called the "Schedule" was introduced (and by the way, in order that you may understand that I have clear knowledge of these matters from personal participation in them, I may say that I was a member of the committee on "Schedule"), Mr. Varian, a member from Salt Lake county, called the attention of the convention to the fact that while we had made this declaration against "polygamous or plural marriages," he held, and very rightly, too, that it was not self-operating, and provided no penalties for its violation; but was merely a declaration, and he doubted if it would be sufficient to meet the expectations of the people of the United States. He therefore recommended a certain course now to be described. You perhaps will remember that our territorial Legislature of 1892 enacted what was virtually the Edmunds-Tucker law. They followed very closely the congressional enactment. Now, said Mr. Varian, in substance, your Legislature enacted practically the law of Congress against these offenses; that being the case, it expresses the willingness of your legislators to meet the demands of the country on this subject. Therefore, let us take so much of this territorial enactment as defines "polygamy, or plural marriage," and provides for the punishment thereof, and make it a provision in this Constitution, operating without any further legislation. Then the people of the United States will know that you mean really to prohibit "polygamous or plural marriages" against which you make your declaration in the ordinance. In pursuance of this proposition he introduced this resolution:

"The act of the governor and Legislative Assembly of the territory
of Utah, entitled, 'An act to punish polygamy and other kindred
offenses,' approved Feb. 4, A. D. 1892, in so far as the same
defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to
be in force in the State of Utah."

Mr. Varian was of the opinion that since this territorial enactment invaded the field already occupied by congressional enactment it was void, and that when Utah became a state the territorial law would not be in force in the state, and of course the congressional enactments applicable to the territory would cease to be operative upon the attainment of statehood; hence he thought it necessary to make this constitutional provision against "polygamous or plural marriages." But the part of the territorial law relating to polygamous living or "unlawful cohabitation"--to use the phrase of the law itself--was not made part of the Constitution of this state. And why? Because the demand made by the people of the United States did not reach to that condition. The demand was only: "provided polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." There were other lawyers in the constitutional convention who contested Mr. Varian's opinion, and insisted that this law of the territory would be operative in the state, and therefore there was no need of adopting his amendment; whereupon a protracted and earnest debate took place, in the course of which it was pointed out to Mr. Varian that he had cut this old territorial law in two; he had taken the part that defined and prohibited "polygamy or plural marriages" and made it part of the Constitution, but he had left out the part of the law relating to unlawful cohabitation, and the effect of such action by implication would be to repeal that part of the territorial law defining and punishing unlawful cohabitation. In the course of the argument made on that point in the convention the following took place:

Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask you [Mr. Varian] a question.
The gentleman will agree with me that your [his] amendment will
repeal the other kindred offenses in that statute?"

Mr. Varian [answering Mr. Evans]--No; there is nothing to repeal.
If you want the other kindred offenses [dealt with], my answer is,
prohibit them by law under penalties. * * * *

Mr. Evans (Weber)--I would like to ask one question. Suppose the
act of 1892 were valid? (i. e., the territorial law dealing with
polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, polygamous living, is referred
to)--

Mr. Varian--If the law were valid I should not then introduce--

Mr. Evans (Weber)--Wouldn't it then repeal everything except the
polygamy?

Mr. Varian--If the law were valid it might repeal by implication,
although repeals by implication are not favored.[A]

[Footnote A: Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. ii, p. 1748.]

Mr. Varian's resolution was adopted and became part of the Constitution, so that in the matter of compact between Utah and the United States on the subject of polygamy [i. e., polygamous marrying] our response went even beyond the demand of the people of the United States as voiced in the Enabling act authorizing us to establish a state government, in that we not only adopted the very language of the enabling act, but accepted the definition of polygamy and provided the punishment, prescribed for that offense by Congress; but no demand was made and no action was taken respecting unlawful cohabitation; nor did it in any manner enter into Utah's compact with the United States.[B]

[Footnote B: Mr. Varian held views in harmony with what he said in the discussion on the floor of the Constitutional Convention even before that Convention assembled in the spring of 1895, for at the Territorial Bar Association of Utah, in January of that year, Mr. Varian, then a member-elect of the Constitutional Convention, said, on referring to statehood for Utah:

"In accordance with the general convictions of civilized men and
the spirit of free institutions, religious liberty will be fully
secured by the organic law and a prohibition against plural or
polygamous marriages adopted in deference to the suggestion by
Congress. Whether it shall ever be stricken from the Constitution
will depend solely upon the future temper and will of the people.
It will be observed that the actual polygamous status, or living
with two or more women as wives, known in Utah as a criminal
offense termed "unlawful cohabitation," is not referred to in the
proviso of the Enabling Act. Whether the Constitution builders will
content themselves with prohibiting polygamous marriages, or will
go further and prescribe the polygamous association also will be
developed in time."

And time developed the fact that the Constitutional Convention took no action whatsoever in relation to polygamous living, nor was any attempt made to deal with that phase of the question since the convention conceived that it had done its full duty, all that was required of it, by the Enabling Act, by "Forever prohibiting plural or polygamous marriages."]

Now, understand me, I am not taking the ground that unlawful cohabitation--"polygamous living"--as it has come to be called--is not now contrary to the law in Utah. That it is under the ban of the law is known to every one. But it became so because our state Legislature, after the constitutional convention had settled this vexed question upon the terms here pointed out--our state Legislature (and why I have never yet understood) proceeded to unsettle what had been settled in that convention, picked up the part of the old territorial law that had been discarded by the convention and enacted it with the rest of the code prepared by the special code commission.

Hence unlawful cohabitation is under the ban by our state enactment; and I am not arguing that polygamous living is not against the law, and am not attempting to justify any one in the violation of that law. I am now merely pointing out the fact that in our compact with the government of the United States disruption of marital relations coming down to us out of the past constituted no part of that compact. The terms of the compact are here in the Enabling act and in the Constitution, and may be read and known of all men.

That compact was not made between the Mormon Church leaders, as claimed by Mr. Kearns' adopted speech, and the United States government, but between the people of the United States acting through Congress and the chief executive of the nation, and the people of Utah, acting through their representatives in the Constitutional convention. Utah's Constitutional convention sought earnestly to meet the demands made upon our people by the nation. The chief executive of the nation by accepting the Constitution we had formed and proclaiming Utah's admission into the Union, said we had succeeded in meeting those demands. To undertake now to read into that compact something that was not demanded by the Enabling act, and not conceded by the convention, that is not expressly found in its terms, and not fairly to be implied from them, is infamous. Yet that is what is constantly sought to be done, and we have all sorts of extravagant claims made as to what the Mormon Church leaders pledged in order to obtain statehood--the compact they made with the nation, and how the Mormon Church has broken it, but never a word do we hear as to the compact itself. The Mormon Church leaders made no pledges to obtain statehood, except as in common with all the people of the state they accepted and ratified the compact implied in the Enabling act and the provision in the Utah Constitution forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages and providing penalties for that offense. The Mormon Church officials pleaded for amnesty for their people, it is true, but amelioration of the hard conditions which a cruel enforcement of the law imposed, not statehood, was the object of their petition.

The foregoing, then, was the compact between the State of Utah and the United States. The question now is, Has it been violated by the State of Utah or by the United States. Certainly not by the latter; and I affirm, with absolute confidence that the affirmation cannot be successfully contradicted, that the compact has not been violated by the State, or the people of Utah. On the contrary, I hold that the compact, such as it was, has been absolutely fulfilled. In this opinion I am sustained by the views of a very distinguished member of the House of Representatives, who discussed the subject somewhat at length on the floor of the House when the Roberts case was considered by that body. It was urged in the report of the special committee which investigated the right of the Representative from Utah to his seat in the House, that "his election as a Representative is an explicit and offensive violation of the 'understanding' by which Utah was admitted as a state."

This "understanding" and the "compact" were discussed on the floor of the House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following language:

"I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the
authority for the proposition that the United States government
can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before
a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it,
exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over
the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it
oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act,
although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that
exists between the States and the general government by reason of
this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under
this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding'
which is based on--what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it
was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these
times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing
between the States and the general government. I knew that the
theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I
have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865.
More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic
and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle--the blue and
the grey, brethren all--rendered up their lives that that infamous
proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the
dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it
ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please
of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract
existing between a State and the United States."

Discussing the question of "compact" further, Mr. Littlefield said:

"Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or
contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between
the State and the general government. They do not stand in the
position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was
to become a State was fully performed when she became a State.
The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the
condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the
condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists.

"What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said
convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and
the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was
a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the
admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is
gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved
in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of
the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of
Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of
Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has
not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for
the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory
is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely
without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any
writer to stand upon."

With Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between Utah and the United States having been violated, it has been fulfilled. Utah has made no effort to repeal the Constitutional provision forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages. On the contrary, her State Legislature has even re-enacted the part of the old Congressional and Territorial law that had been ignored by the Constitutional convention, defining and punishing polygamous living--that is, "unlawful cohabitation."

OF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MONARCHY.

Passing from the matter of the compact which the speech to which I am replying falsely charges over and over again that we have violated, I come to the accusation and false charges made against the Mormon Church.

Whoever constructed this speech made the central idea of it, the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch" in the State of Utah. The "monarchy" is the Mormon Church; the "monarch" is the President of that Church. In order that you may know I am not mistaken, I shall read to you a quotation from the speech on this point:

"Under these several men (the Church Presidents) the social
autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time
it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the
original Joseph or under Brigham Young. * * * I want you to know
that this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality
of men immediately established and has maintained for the mass of
its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its
rulers to regal authority and splendor * * * the chief among them
has the dignity of a monarch. * * * In all this social system each
Apostle has his great part. He is inseparable from it. He wields
now, as does the minister at court, such part of power as the
monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation
that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order
that he may become the ruler."

There is much more to the same effect, but this is enough to show you that the existence of both a "monarchy" and a "monarch" are charged as existing in the Church organization and in its president.

I wish to call your attention to the fact that this is mere assumption. There is no "monarchy" and there is no "monarch" in the Mormon Church. It is a fundamental, constitutional, and I might say institutional principle in the Church that all things in the Church shall be done by common consent of the Church; (Doc. & Cov. sec. xxvi) and so long as that remains the great underlying principle of the government--and largely even of administrative functions,--of the Church of Jesus Christ, I ask you where the principle of monarchy can come in? Furthermore it is expressly provided that no officer of the Church can occupy a place in any of the general or local quorums of the Church, only as he is sustained and accepted by the members of the several divisions of the Church named. (Doc. & Cov. xx: 65.) Moreover, elections, which give the opportunity to get rid of undesirable officers, are more frequent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than in any other system of ecclesiastical government known to men. Will you tell me how a monarchy can exist in the face of these fundamental truths? I would like to see some explanation of that.

Again, the President of the Church is no "monarch." Yet let me read to you how he is described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech:

"Under these several men [successive Presidents of the Church] the
social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present
time it is probably at as high a point as it every reached under
the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The President of the
Church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His home consists
of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded
by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. In
addition to this he has an official residence of historic character
near to the office which he occupies as President. When he travels
he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really
servitors. When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler
among his subjects."

Can any of you recognize President Joseph F. Smith in that description? I cannot boast of an extremely intimate acquaintance with President Smith's domestic life, or his financial status; but it has been my good fortune to know him personally some 30 years. I know something of the severe economy and frugality which he practices. I know his homes are but cottages, without the grandeur here given them. I know that his family lives in economy and frugality, and that every tree, evergreen, shrub, or flowering plant, or plat of grass about any one of his cottage homes was planted by his own hands or the labor of his sons and wives. I do know that. And though he does now occupy an historic building, owned, not by Joseph F. Smith, but by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is more for the convenience of the people and those who have business with him that he dwells there than because of any "regal" or extravagant tastes that he himself possesses, and in that "official residence" he lives the simplest of lives. I know at least seven of his sons who have arrived at manhood's estate, and I know that they live by daily toil, as my sons and your sons do, as the sons of all the common people do, and occupying no very exalted positions in the industrial or business world, although they are capable, honest and hard working young men. One of them has assisted me in my office work as stenographer for three years. Don't you think if President Smith really affected this "regal state," "lorded" it over the people as he is here represented as doing, and lived in this "series of villas of sufficient exclusiveness" that he would undertake to elevate these sons of his and all his family above this toil in which they are engaged?

The description presents a false picture. I brand it as such. It represents rather the style and state in which the writer of Mr. Kearns' speech would live if he possessed the opportunities he believes President Smith possesses, rather than the manner of President Smith's living. Especially as to the villas of "sufficient exclusiveness."

Again, while President Smith, as we believe, has received a divine appointment to the station he holds, he is dependent for his continuance in that office, as he was dependent for his elevation to it, upon the votes of the people. He is subject to the laws of the Church, as much so as you or I; and a special provision is made in the laws of God for a tribunal before which, for acts of irregularity and unrighteousness, he can be called to account, testimony taken against him, and if his offenses are of sufficiently serious a nature he may be dismissed from his high office, and excommunicated from the Church; and the revelation which provides these arrangements concerning him says that the decision of the court in question is the end of controversy in his case. I know that some men, in their over-zeal to exalt the office of President of the Church have advanced extravagant ideas upon the subject such as saying that no complaint must be made of those occupying that position; that the people must go on performing their daily duties without question, and then if the President should do wrong, God would look after him. Such teachings have now and then been heard; but I call your attention to the fact that the Church Of God is greater than any one man within that Church, however exalted his station may be; that the Lord has provided means by which the Church can correct every man within it, and can-dismiss the unworthy from power. That right is resident in the Church of Christ; and the Church don't have to wait till God kills off unworthy servants before a wrong can be righted. The power exists within the Church to correct any evil, of whatever name or nature, that may arise within it, and that without disrupting the Church, or creating anarchy, but all things are to be done in order, and as God has appointed them. I could give you references to the Doctrine and Covenants covering all these points, but it is a matter of such common knowledge among you that it is not necessary.

Again, the decisions of the First Presidency of the Church are not final in relation to matters of administration and government in the Church, if such decisions are made in unrighteousness, but from such decisions of the First Presidency appeals lie to the general assembly of all the quorums of the Priesthood, which constitute the highest spiritual authority in the Church, that is, all the quorums of the Priesthood are greater than any one quorum, even though it should be the First Presidency. (Doc. and Cov. sec. 107). Neither "monarchy" nor "monarch" can exist where these principles are recognized, as they are recognized in the Church.

OF THE CHURCH TITHING SYSTEM AND ALLEGED COMMERCIALISM.

The Church government rests purely and solely upon moral authority. Let me explain. Authority is represented in government as of two kinds. Our writers on government tell us that one is "effective authority" and the other is "moral authority." You see effective authority operative in the various governments of man, in kingdoms, empires and republics; their authority rests on force, on compulsion. But moral authority rests on persuasion, not upon compulsion or force. "The action of God," says one, "upon man is moral and moral only. By constituting man free, he has refused to exercise effective authority over him, and an ecclesiastic or politic society claiming divine authority must exercise moral authority only; for the moment it exercises compulsion it ceases to represent God and resolves itself into effective authority which is human, all human, and not at all divine," (Baring-Gold). The government of the Church of Latter-day Saints is such a moral government as is here described. It rests on moral authority only. I read to you from one of the revelations:

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue
of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by
gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

"By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the
soul without hypocrisy, and without guile."

This is the spirit of the authority underlying this ecclesiastical institution that is described as a "monarchy!"

Having laid the foundation for his argument in this assumption of the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch," the author of Mr. Kearns' speech weaves around it all sorts of fallacies, a few of which I shall examine. It is charged that the Church is a business corporation rather than a Church, and is establishing a monopoly in business, and threatens, as some gigantic trust might threaten, the industries of this intermountain region. This is not true. It is true that the Church has invested some of its means in various corporations and enterprises. In so doing it has manifested, as I think, profound wisdom. It has long been regarded as a wise policy in establishing endowments for charitable purposes to invest the original donations given by the generously inclined, and use only the interest upon them for the charitable purpose, and thus place the charity upon a basis sure to prolong its life of usefulness. I say that is a policy of good sense, and good judgment; and that is what is done and no more than that when the Trustee-in-Trust of the Mormon Church invests Mormon Church tithes in business enterprises. But the Church holdings in the various corporations where the investments are made are not sufficient to dominate those institutions or to establish them as trusts in the industrial affairs of the state. Charitable, educational and missionary work are the purposes to which the revenue of the Church is directly devoted. In proof of this let me call your attention to the work in which the Church is engaged, and in which our tithes are consumed.

We teach, as you all know, the principle of gathering to our people. Wherever the gospel is preached the cry goes with it, "Come out of Babylon, oh ye, my people, that ye partake not of her sins and receive not of her plagues." And inasmuch as there is a gathering, must there not also be made some provision to care for the people who come to us? Must we not provide some way for them to gain a foothold in the land if they are to become inhabitants of Zion? Most assuredly; and so part of our tithe funds go into colonizing enterprises that provide a means of obtaining homes for the people. This is done not only in the interests of those who come to us from afar, but in the interests also of those who grow up in our own old centers of population and find the need of enlarged opportunities.

The Church has to sustain publication houses in various parts of the world, and they are maintained, in part, by the general funds of the Church.

We have churches to build in all the wards and stakes of Zion; and while I know, as you know, that part of that expense is met by the people, outside of their tithing, part of it is also met by appropriation from the general funds of the Church.

Temples have been built, and not only built, but maintained. We have four of these magnificent structures now in the State of Utah, and others are in contemplation in other lands where our people are settled.

We have a missionary system to support; and while it is true the missionary meets his own expenses largely, yet the Church from its general funds provides for his return to his home and here and there assistance is rendered where it becomes absolutely necessary.

The Church has its employees to pay; while there is no organization in the world where so much of free labor is given to it--especially in the matter of its preaching ministry--as in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church does of course require all the time and talent of some of its servants, and when that is the case it necessarily has to remunerate them for their services.

A Church school system has been founded and must be maintained; and this is a much larger enterprise than many suppose it to be. We sustain, and chiefly from the general funds of the Church, the Brigham Young university, Provo, Utah; the Latter-day Saints' University, Salt Lake City, Utah; the Brigham Young college, Logan, Utah; the Weber Stake academy, Ogden, Utah; the Juarez Stake academy, Juarez, Mexico; the Snow academy, Ephraim, Utah; the Ricks academy, Rexburg, Ida.; The Thatcher academy, Thatcher, Ariz.; the Fielding academy, Paris, Idaho; the Cassia Stake Academy, Oakley, Idaho; the Emery Stake academy, Castle Dale, Utah; the St. Johns Stake academy, St. Johns, Arizona; the Snowflake Stake academy, Snowflake, Arizona; the Uintah Stake academy, Vernal, Utah; the Beaver Branch B. Y. University, Beaver, Utah.

If you suppose that this school system does not make large drafts upon the general funds of the Church paid in by you and all of us, you are very much mistaken.

Again, the Church has erected a magnificent hospital in Salt Lake City, the best in the west, and that chiefly from the general funds of the Church, and it will have to be maintained and doubtless enlarged in the same way.

In addition to all this there is the maintenance of the poor, who are always with us, and who are always welcomed into the Church of Christ, though the maintenance and care of them always has been and is now a heavy draft upon the resources of the Church, but it is borne cheerfully since the love and care of the Church for the poor is one of the evidences of her divinity. When men came to the Son of God anciently and demanded to know "Art thou the Messiah, or must we look for another?" Jesus said, "Go and tell those who sent you that the sick are healed, that the blind see, that the lame walk;" and then, I think most glorious of all, he said, "And to the poor the Gospel is preached." And so in this dispensation of the fulness of times, one of the signs of the work's divinity is that it has preached the gospel to the poor, has gathered them from the nations of the earth, has tried to teach them how to sustain themselves, but where that has been out of their power the Church has nourished and supported them from its tithes and its free-will fast offerings, so that the cry of the poor does not reach the ears of the God of Sabbaoth from the midst of the saints.

After the author of this Kearns' adopted speech had recalled the fact that Mormons looked upon this part of their work with pride, he says that in some of the institutions established by the state for the maintenance of the poor, notwithstanding Mormon pride in care of their poor, there are some Mormon poor in those institutions. Well, what of it? Have not the Mormons as well as other citizens a right to such assistance? It is conceded even in the speech under consideration that the Mormons pay half the taxes (and they pay much more than half) out of which the infirmaries with other state institutions are sustained. But notwithstanding there may be some few Mormons in these state institutions, it still remains true that the Mormon Church does much for the poor, and that this charitable work is a heavy draft upon her revenues.

It is falsely represented in this speech that the tithes of the Church are the personal income of the Trustee-in-Trust of the Church.

I know there are many here who, when I make that announcement, will doubtless think, surely Mr. Roberts must be mistaken; a charge so absurd as that would certainly not be made on the floor of the United States senate. But I will read you the charge:

"Independent of these business concerns, he [President Smith] is in
receipt of an income like unto that which a royal family derives
from a national treasury. One-tenth of all the annual earnings of
all the Mormons in the world flows to him. These funds amount to
the sum of $1,600,000 annually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000,
which is one-quarter of the entire taxable wealth of the State of
Utah. It is the same as if he owned, individually, in addition
to all his visible enterprises, one-quarter of the wealth of the
state, and derived from it 5 per cent of income without taxation
and without discount. * * * With an income of 5 per cent upon
one-quarter of the entire assessed valuation of the State of Utah
today, how long will it take this monarch, with his constantly
increasing demands for revenue, to absorb the productive power so
their he shall be receiving an income of 5 per cent upon one-half
the property, and then upon all of the property of the state? This
is worse than the farming taxes under the old French kings. Will
Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?"

I say that a meaner falsehood could not be uttered than is uttered in those sentences. And it was not done in ignorance. It was done with the intent to deceive the people of the United States, to awaken their bitterness against the great majority of the people in this state, and to represent the Mormons as subservient to a monarch, to a tyrant living in grandeur and upon the profits of their earnings, and was intended to work mischief towards the people of this state. I need not deny the falsehood--you all know the charge to be untrue--that the funds which flow into the hands of the Trustee-in-Trust are but trust funds. Not one dollar belongs to him personally. These funds are used for the various purposes that we have just been considering.

Again, this speech falsely represents that the "government money" is tithed. I shall have to read the passage from the speech in which the charge occurs in order to get you to believe that, I know. So here it is:

"It will astound you to know that every dollar of United States
money paid to any servant of the government who is a Mormon is
tithed for the benefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus
paid he gets $100 to swell his grandeur. This is also true of money
paid out of the public treasury of the State of Utah to Mormon
officials."

Nor is the end yet:

"But what is worst of all, the monarch dips into the sacred public
school fund and extracts from every Mormon teacher one-tenth of
his or her earnings and uses it for his unaccounted purposes; and,
by means of these purposes and the power which they constitute, he
defies the laws of his state, the sentiment of his country, and is
waging war of nullification on the public school system, so dear to
the American people."

And that is not all:

"In all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to
voluntary gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters
connected legitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are
against the tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from
individuals the moneys which they ought not to spare from family
needs, and which they do not wish to spare."