Chapter 10 - Year of Political Ferment

Chapter 10 - Year of Political Ferment

SIGNS OF A SPRINGTIME of reconciliation, forecast by The Tribune in 1887, continued to appear from time to time in 1888 and 1889. One of the most dramatic, which would have been inconceivable a few years earlier, sprouted in the Salt Lake City municipal election in February.

Leaders of the People's (Mormon) Party, who well knew that they would win the election as they had in the past, decided to offer the Liberals four places on their municipal ticket which would then campaign as a fusion ticket. The proposition was presented to a committee of prominent Liberals and accepted by them. It was then proposed to the newly organized Chamber of Commerce and endorsed by about a two-thirds vote of the membership. Next the proposition was laid before the convention of the People's Party, which adopted it by unanimous vote. A ticket was then nominated comprised of the following:

Mayor, Francis Armstrong; aldermen, William W. Riter, Thomas G. Webber, William S. McCornick (Liberal), James Sharp, and George D. Pyper; councilors, LeGrand Young, John Clark, A. W. Carlson, Thomas E. Jeremy, Jr., John Fewson Smith, Samuel P. Teasdel, John M. Dooly (Liberal), M. B. Sowles (Liberal) and Bolivar Roberts (Liberal); recorder, Moses V. Thatcher; marshal, Alfred Solomon.

Although a small committee of prominent gentiles, mostly businessmen, had indorsed the plan, it quickly generated a feud within the Liberal Party. At a meeting in the Chamber of Commerce a larger group of Liberal Party members denounced the fusion movement as a trick to advance Mormon purposes in Washington and it was rejected by majority vote. The group then proceeded to nominate Henry W. Lawrence, a former Mormon who helped financially to launch The Tribune, for mayor and appointed a committee to complete an all-Liberal ticket.

Some of the most adamant opponents of the fusion idea were people who had left or been cut off by the church. Among the gentiles who supported fusion were Governor West, who seemed to be motivated by a deep desire for conciliation despite brusque rejection of his overtures in this direction by imprisoned polygamists; U.S. Marshal Frank H. Dyer; J. R. Rawlins, a prominent attorney who had drifted out of the church; W. H. Dickson and C. S. Varian, both former federal officials; The Tribune and its editor, C. C. Goodwin.

Goodwin not only defended the fusion approach in editorials but appeared at a meeting of Liberal Party members to urge its acceptance by the membership. Some, he said, regarded it as a trick. And he conceded that efforts would be made by the People's Party to make capital out of it. But even if this did happen, he argued, it would not hurt the Liberal Party as much as to reject the offer. The Liberals, he argued, had nothing to lose and much to gain and, in any event, should give the Mormons credit for sincerity. In the political climate existing at that time it called for considerable courage for gentiles to publicly advocate fusion. Ironically, it exposed to jibes of "Jack Mormon" The Tribune, which Mormons regarded as their arch-enemy, and several former and incumbent federal officials who had been roundly denounced as persecutors of the Mormon people.

The fusion, or citizens' ticket, won as expected but very few Liberals voted the straight ticket.

Soon after this election two changes were made in the federal judiciary of the territory. The changes were pleasing to the Mormons and displeasing to the more stiff-necked gentiles. But even this sort of disagreement served to increase and strengthen the tenuous lines of communication across the chasm separating the community. Chief Justice Zane was replaced by Elliot Sandford of New York, and a fourth judge was added in the person of John W. Judd of Tennessee. Both new appointees were, of course, Democrats. Socially, both mixed more freely with Mormons. Judicially, both took a softer stance on polygamy than had Judge Zane.

One of the sensational events of the year was the appearance in court on the morning of September 17,1888, of Apostle George Q. Cannon to plead guilty to two previous indictments brought against him under the anti-polygamy laws. The Tribune had, with almost tiresome frequency, urged Apostle Cannon and other church leaders in exile or in hiding to take such action. But this is not mentioned to suggest that Cannon was reacting to advice from that source. Other reasons which might have prompted his action at that particular time were pending efforts of the church to win statehood; the conciliatory attitude of the new judges; the widespread feeling among gentiles, and some of the less devout of the church membership, that the leadership should show more willingness to take some of the medicine they were advising their followers to take.

Whatever the reasons for his surrender after he had previously jumped a total of $45,000 bail to avoid sentencing, it proved to be an opportune time to clear the record. He was treated softly by Judge Sandford who did not ask for a direct pledge as to future conduct with respect to the anti-polygamy laws but accepted in lieu thereof the defendant's assent to a statement made by the court: ". . . your submission is an acknowledgementat least, admission - that you submit yourself to the authority of the law and admit the supremacy of the law, which every man must bow to and give obedience to."

The judge imposed sentences for the two counts of 175 days in prison and fines totaling $450. Other convicted violators of the anti-polygamy laws followed the same course that day and on succeeding days, some receiving suspended sentences if they were aged or unable to pay a fine, and all receiving relatively lenient treatment. It was clearly a signal that the newly appointed federal judges were going to ease off on the polygamy crusade. Many gentiles, including The Tribune policy-makers, did not like the new policy and said so frequently and vehemently. Idaho's delegate to Congress, Fred T. Dubois, who as a federal attorney in Idaho had vigorously pressed the polygamy crusade in that state, introduced a resolution in Congress designed to put some pressure on President Cleveland for his use of the pardoning power in polygamy cases. The only tangible result of this maneuver was a report from the attorney general showing the disposition of each earlier case. This report showed, in addition to pardons granted, that up to that time there had been 500 convictions in Utah and 89 in Idaho under the provisions of the antipolygamy acts of 1882 and 1887.

At the election in the fall John T. Caine was routinely reelected to Congress on the People's Party ticket. His opponents were Robert N. Baskin, Liberal; and Samuel R. Thurman, the nominee of a newly organized Sagebrush Democratic Party. Among the organizers of the new Democratic Party was Anthony W. Ivins, who later became a member of the First Presidency of the church and a potent force in the pacification of the "irrepressible conflict."

Early in 1889, with the Republican Party back in power and with Benjamin Harrison as president, the statehood drive was renewed by the Mormon Church.

The Liberal Party sent Baskin, J. R. McBride and E. P. Ferry to Washington to lobby against the proposal, and Lannan of The Tribune spent a good part of the winter there assisting the committee. Governor West likewise appeared in Washington to oppose the statehood bid, but even in opposition he lowered some barriers to dialogue between the warring forces in the territory. Appearing before the committee considering the statehood bid, the governor asserted that progress had been made and was being made in bridging the chasm that had separated the Mormons and non-Mormons since settlement of the territory; that the Mormons had relaxed their old rule of rigorous exclusiveness; that they had exhibited a spirit of liberality and enterprise in appropriating money for charitable and educational institutions; that they had joined with non-Mormons in promoting the economic welfare of the territory; that they had liberalized municipal governments wholly in their control.

"I shall not arraign the Mormon people," he continued, "as wanting in comparison with other people in religious devotion, virtue, sobriety, industry and the graces and qualities that adorn, beautify, and bless life." But none of these things, he concluded, could justify statehood at that time because of the "despotism of the Mormon political system."

The elation of the Mormons over the appointment of federal judges who took a more tolerant attitude toward anti-polygamy law violations was short-lived. Republican President Harrison was less sensitive about playing the party patronage game than had been Democratic President Cleveland, a champion of civil service. Within six months after becoming president, Harrison replaced Governor West with Arthur L. Thomas, who had served as secretary of the territory under Governor Murray; and the two judges who had been so considerate of convicted polygamists — Sandford and Judd — were pushed aside for Republican appointees. Judge Sandford was replaced by his predecessor — Charles S. Zane. This change, or restoration, created an uproar in the local and national press. Criticism of the appointment was not directed so much at Judge Zane as to the nature of the removal of Judge Sandford. In a brief, curt communication, the attorney general notified Judge Sandford that he had been directed by the President "to advise you that in his opinion the public interest will be subserved by a change in the office of Chief Justice of Utah, and this being so, he would be pleased to receive your resignation as such Chief Justice."

Judge Sandford responded with an inquiry as to whether any changes or complaints had been preferred against him and the comment "that if a change is necessary for political reasons only, the President can have my resignation as soon as the business of the court and the proper disposition of matters now pending before me will permit."

The attorney general replied that there had been some complaints about the manner in which the judge had discharged his judicial duties and added: "Independently of these particular complaints, however, the President has become satisfied that your administration of the office was not in harmony with the policy he deemed proper to be pursued with reference to Utah affairs, and for this reason he desired to make a change, and out of courtesy gave you an opportunity to resign. As you did not see fit to embrace this opportunity, the President has removed you and appointed your successor."

Judge Sandford retorted: "... I have the honor to say that my earnest purpose while on the bench, as Chief Justice of this Territory, has been to administer justice and the laws honestly and impartially to all men, under the obligation of my oath of office. If the President of the United States has any policy which he desires a judge of the Supreme Court to carry out in reference to Utah affairs, other than the one I have pursued, you may say to him that he has done well to remove me."

While every political realist of that period, or any other period, was aware that policy changes are frequently made through the appointive power, it was not something to admit with respect to the judiciary. The administration had asked for it; and Judge Sandford gave it to them, right on the chin. The judge clearly won the encounter in terms of editorial reactions, though not with the help of The Tribune. But the gentiles took comfort from the belief that they had won in terms of substance. The incident, however, turned out to be closer to a stand-off than a clear-cut victory for either side. For Judge Zane thereafter was more moderate than either the Mormons or gentiles expected him to be. Historian Whitney's appraisal of the restored judge was summed up in these words:

"His [Zane'sj course thereafter was not what many [Mormonsj feared it would be. He seemed to be actuated by a kinder or more conservative spirit than formerly, and eventually became popular with many if not most of the Mormon people; and that, too, while retaining his popularity with the gentiles."

Thus it can be inferred that this incident, as abrasive as it seemed at the time, served, on balance, to promote rather than blight the cause of accommodation.

Politically, the "impossible" happened in February, 1889. The Liberals carried Ogden City in a municipal election and elected a non-Mormon city administration headed by Frederick J. Kiesel as mayor. The Mormons charged that the Liberals won by bringing in unregistered railroad workers and getting their ballots in the boxes and counted through connivance of registrars and election judges. The Tribune attributed the victory to the "glorious generalship of the Liberal leaders," the excellent work by United States Marshal Dyer and a sprinkling of Mormons who had decided it was time for a change.

In an exulting editorial The Tribune said:

The magnitude of the victory achieved by the Ogden Liberals grows in thought the more it is contemplated. Indeed, it was not all accomplished by the Liberals. At least a few of the Saints must have decided it was time for a change, and so voted for the Liberal candidates. It makes an epoch in our sister city; it is an absolute revolution. . . .

In response to critical Deseret News comment that the new mayor's statement — "I shall not forget that I was elected by a party" — had a genuine American political ring to it, The Tribune asked:

Is it peculiarly American?... Can the News point to any man elected by that [Mormon] party during thirty-eight years who ever for a moment forgot that he was elected by a certain party? Can it point to one contract or one day's employment given by those officers to any gentile in all those thirty-eight years? . . . And how many Mormon officers in all the world could add what Mr. Kiesel adds: T shall endeavor to administer the affairs of my office without partisanship and also without discrimination in the matter of public works.' . . .

But the gentile gloating in February soared to gentile ecstasy in August when they, unbelievably, carried Salt Lake in a legislative and county election by a margin of 41 votes. The Tribune hailed this event with these headlines: "Salt Lake City Goes Liberal; The Death Knell of Mormon Rule; The City Is Gentile by Forty-one Votes; People Wild with Enthusiasm; Pierce, Allen, Williams, Ferry, Kimball, Smith, Benner and Hall Elected; Moyle, LeGrand Young, Clark and Others of the Holy Priesthood in Sack Cloth and Ashes."

In an editorial under the heading - "Victory! Victory!! Victory!!!" — the newspaper said:

Is it not immense? The Central Stake of Zion, on the popular vote, has gone from fifty up to perhaps one hundred Liberals. It is a day that when we predicted its coming, a few years ago, men tapped their foreheads and shook their heads most piteously. We fully believe that the majesty of the Republic would after awhile assert itself; we believed that even as the thief on the cross repented at last, a sense of justice would at last pervade Mormonism itself. The victory yesterday was not won wholly by gentiles. The quicksand conscience and expanding Americanism in many a young Mormon's heart helped to swell the glory of yesterday. . . .

The Deseret News, Herald and many leaders of the opposition screamed fraud. But even assuming some election day irregularities, which would not have been unique to that time or place, it was big political news. For the non-Mormons up to that time had been too impotent in the political elective apparatus to even steal an election in Salt Lake.

Whitney's comment on the event in his History of Utah was:

That the Liberal majority of forty-one was real, in the sense of being legal, was much doubted by their opponents. It was charged that impersonators of dead or absent voters, as well as soldiers from Fort Douglas, had been allowed to cast their ballots, and that this was the basis of Liberal predominance. Whatever the facts in the case, the leaders of that party now went to work, laying their plans for the capture of Salt Lake City in February. 10

In the light of the population division as between Mormons and non-Mormons at that time, there are good reasons to suspect that either there was some ballot box stuffing, as suggested by Whitney; or that some Mormons crossed over to the Liberal side, as asserted by The Tribune; or that there was some of both.

As forecast by the political events of 1889, the warring parties did go all out to win the Salt Lake City election of 1890. Both sides organized clubs throughout the city. Marching bands were formed; campaign songs were composed and the best orators of the city tried mightily to enhance their reputations for swaying the populace. The Liberal campaign was directed by General Patrick E. Connor, the father of the Liberal Party, as titular and honorary head, and by Judge Orlando W. Powers, a skilled political tactician and brilliant orator, as the field general. Spearheading the People's Party campaign were F. S. Richards, able lawyer and political general, and R. W. Young.

Commenting on a grand parade of the Liberals before the election, editor Goodwin of The Tribune launched into one of his characteristic editorial prose poems:

When, after days of heat and prostration around rocky promontory, the breeze grows fresh and the combers from the deep sea come rolling in to break in fury against the headland, all things animate and inanimate, seem to be roaring around the devoted shore. . . . Utah has long been a rocky promontory. It has been a moral storm center. For two score years it has been reckoned a coast so dangersous that the prudent mariners have been headed away from it; but at last the signals have come of something which will clear the air, and though the shore may be rocked by the storm, all know that when it shall have passed away, the land will be better for the visitation. Leaving metaphors aside, the display last night was new proof that Salt Lake City is being rapidly Americanized. . . . The grandest feature of the moving picture last night was that there was nothing but joy in the hearts of the men in line. If a fair prospect of victory seemed to shine from their eyes, the thought that warmed and cheered was that it would be a double victory if achieved — a victory for the Liberals, and, though they cannot see it yet, a victory for the men who are opposing the Liberals. This is true, for this Territory cannot much longer remain un- Americanized. . .

The flavor of the People's Party campaign can be tasted from some sample stanzas of one of their campaign songs, inspired by a postponement of a scheduled Liberal parade because of inclement weather to a later date "if weather permits."

The Liberals one evening postponed their parade, Because of the weather they felt much afraid. The fact of the matter their "Gineral" admits, But they'll have it hereafter, if weather permits. Hurrah, hurrah, "free water," they cry; But they're not fond of it, even when dry. Hurrah, hurrah, free whiskey they'll try, But as for free water, that's all in your eye. They call us priestridden, but what shall we say Of that tyrant, the tripod they trembling obey? They'll vote as they're told when The Tribune ring sits, And they won't vote at all unless TRIBBY permits. Hurrah, hurrah for the people! Three groans For the party whose conscience Pat Lannan still owns. Perhaps it is treason to talk in such tones; But they live in glass houses and shouldn't throw stones.

Perhaps more important than the parades, campaign songs and oratory in the election campaign was the registration drives. And here the Liberals had a clear advantage. The city registrar was the secretary of the federally appointed Utah Commission which supervised elections and he was a gentile. His five deputies were Liberals, four of them were candidates on the Liberal ticket. Court rulings in polygamy cases were used to disqualify some of the Mormon voters and charges were made that the Liberals registered and voted workmen on the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad from as far away as Grand Junction, Colorado. The registration process produced a rash of court challenges. But here again the Liberals had the advantage of gentile judges and their position generally prevailed in the test cases. Legal challenges continued throughout the campaign, on election day, and for some time thereafter. But the Liberals elected their entire ticket, headed by George M. Scott as mayor.

At the county election in August a ticket was entered by the Independent Workingmen, which was adopted by the People's Party except as to one candidate, and the Liberal and fusion tickets split the offices.

All in all 1890 had been a year of political setbacks for the People's Party and a year of triumph for the Liberal Party. But the elections were not the most serious blows suffered by the church that year. On February 3 the United States Supreme Court declared the Idaho test oath, which in effect disenfranchised Mormons, to be constitutional. Mormons were astounded and anti-Mormons were jubilant. The decision immediately activated a movement among Utah anti-Mormons to press for a federal act to accomplish the same purpose in the Utah Territory. A bill, more stringent than the Idaho law, was introduced into the Congress — the Cullom-Struble Bill. But some of the Utah gentiles were far from jubilant about this turn of events. One such, and he presumably represented a substantial segment though not a majority of the gentiles, was Fred Simon, vice president of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. In a letter to Governor Thomas and former Utah Governor West who was then in Washington to support the proposed bill, Mr. Simon wrote:

It was our conservative policy, of which you [West] were the leader, which made it possible for the Liberal Party to win; but for this work, the radical Liberal element would be as little advanced as it was five years ago. And now our wheels of progress are to be turned backward, and a policy inaugurated which in ten minutes' time shall settle what ought to take from five to ten years to accomplish. Take a stave and try to bend it into a hoop by a sudden motion and you will break it; only by gradual bending can the work be accomplished. From the moment the Cullom bill is passed, we must make up our minds that we have in every Mormon a conspirator who will lie awake night after night, and think and plan how to get even. It seems to me that the bill has been conceived in hatred and vindictiveness, and will bear poisoned fruit, which will not only poison the make-up of the average man, but will also inoculate itself upon those who are now advocating this policy.To attempt to build a commonwealth with two hundred thousand conspirators in our midst, vastly outnumbering the other side, is like erecting a building, the foundation of which rests upon a sand bank. Sparta had in its own midst Helots whom they conquered, and history well proves the result of their work.

This bill was not fated to become law, for something was about to happen which would relieve the tremendous economic and political pressures bearing down on the church. That something was Wilford Woodruffs official declaration that he would submit to laws forbidding plural marriages and use his influence with other members of the church to have them do likewise. It was what has become known in Utah's unique and troubled history as the "Manifesto."