Chapter 8 - "The Madam"

Chapter 8 - "The Madam"

MIDWAY IN THE anti-polygamy crusade a counter-attack was launched which cooled, temporarily at least, the enthusiasm of some of the "cohab hunters." The opening shot in this counter-attack was the arrest of a deputy United States Marshal named Oscar C. Vandercook on a charge of violating a city ordinance covering lewd and lascivious conduct. The federal official was arrested when he alighted from a train from Brigham City, where he had headed the search resulting in the arrest of Lorenzo Snow.

Vandercook offered no resistance to his arrest by the city police on a warrant issued by Alderman Adam Spiers upon a complaint filed by B. Y. Hampton, city license collector. He declared it was a "trumped-up" maneuver by the Mormon city administration and police to intimidate those engaged in the apprehending and prosecution of suspected Edmunds Act violators. According to historian Whitney, the arrest, and others immediately thereafter, resulted in considerable consternation, if not intimidation. Whitney's account continued:

At the time set for the trial of Deputy Marshal Vandercook, the Police Court was thronged. The news of the arrests had spread like wild-fire. Not only was general interest awakened; but in some quarters absolute consternation reigned. This was caused by a rumor — which proved to be well founded — that the police were liable at any moment to be taken into custody, for practices similar to those charged against the official named. Some of the prospective defendants were men who had served warrants, sat upon juries, and played various parts in the anti-polygamy movement then in progress. Just where the lightning would next strike was uncertain. Suspense added ten-fold misery to the fears of those who found themselves occupying positions the reverse of invulnerable. It was said that those whose names were 'on the list' had been caught in flagrante delicto by detectives, who, in collusion with fallen women of the town, had undertaken this little diversion with a view to balancing the scales of the Blind Goddess in Utah, and visiting the rigors of the law upon certain crimes against which the Federal courts were not then proceeding, and at which, it was held, the Edmunds Law did not aim. . . . What lent additional terror to the situation was the significant fact that the charges in these cases did not consist of glittering generalities. Details were given; names, dates, circumstances were all set forth. In short, it was just such data as eye witnesses would naturally be expected to produce; and eye witnesses the complainants claimed to be. License Collector Hampton was the leader of the detective force, which included several members of the regular police.

The Tribune wrathfully charged that it was all a brazen conspiracy aimed at intimidation. The newspaper's version was that Hampton had recruited the cooperation of a "madam" from San Francisco, set her up in business in Salt Lake City at a cost of several hundred dollars, and agreed to pay her a fixed fee for each client enticed into the house and compromised to a degree which would support a conviction. The "madam" was obligated to supply names, dates and other information pertinent for arrest and prosecution.

The News, Herald and the city officials involved took the position that the arrest of Vandercook and others was simply an extension of the crusade to purify the moral atmosphere of the community begun by the Edmunds Act prosecutions and that the net was designed to catch all possible offenders — Mormon, gentile or Jew.

After a few days of legal maneuvering, some of the defendants were tried and convicted in police court and sentences imposed of $299 fines and three months imprisonment. The defendants then appealed to the District Court (which was federal) and all were dismissed on the grounds that the prosecutions were the result of a conspiracy of entrapment. In making the motion for dismissal, Assistant United States Attorney C. S. Varian is reported to have said in reference to the witnesses who had testified against the defendants that he "would not believe such scoundrels on oath, even in the high court of heaven itself. . . I refuse to prosecute them [the appellant-defendants], or to allow them to be prosecuted; I am sure they could not be convicted, and am certain they ought not to be."

This disposed of the cases initiated by the city police. Hampton was indicted by the grand jury for conspiracy and convicted. His defenders claimed he was convicted on the testimony of witnesses whom Varian had called untrustworthy scoundrels. He was sentenced to one year in prison and served the full term.

The participants in the anti-polygamy crusade could now breathe easier, so far as the city law was concerned. However, it may be presumed that some at least, who found entrapment to be an adequate legal defense, found it less effective when they were confronted by an enraged monogamous spouse at home.

The biggest single sensation in the anti-polygamy crusade was the arrest on February 13, 1886 of George Q. Cannon at Humboldt Wells, Nevada. He was the second man in authority in the Mormon Church and was regarded by some, including The Tribune, as the number one man in actual influence. His apprehension, in fact, brought The Tribune and the Herald to one of their very rare points of agreement. A Tribune editorial on February 17, 1886 said:

The Herald yesterday said that George Q. Cannon's arrest had been more desired than that of any other Mormon. This is true. There were ample reasons for it. He was the power behind the throne in this absolute Mormon Kingdom. It was in his power to have caused peace and quiet here. . .

While the arrest of the church official was an event which plunged Mormons into deep depression and provoked jubilation among anti-Mormons, it was a series of related and subsequent developments which make the case the most sensational of the crusade.

Federal officials had been watching the Cannon farm southwest of the city for some weeks, probably because of tips that the church leader might appear there. It was presumed, and correctly so, that he and President John Taylor were keeping in close touch with each other during their exile so they could make joint decisions regarding church business. (Joseph F. Smith, the other member of the First Presidency, was abroad at the time.) Rumors had been circulated that both Taylor and Cannon were together in hiding in some home in the vicinity of Salt Lake City. The telegraphed report of Cannon's arrest in Nevada was therefore presumed by many to be in error when it was first received. But positive confirmation was shortly received from U.S. Marshal E.A. Ireland, who telegraphed that Cannon had consented to return to Salt Lake City without papers.

It was later disclosed that Cannon had indeed been in the Salt Lake area with President Taylor; that he had agreed to go to Mexico to negotiate for land on which the Mormons might settle without giving up polygamy; that he and his party had traveled to Ogden in a freight car; that they had been taken from there by team to the vicinity of Willard in Box Elder County where they boarded a west-bound Central Pacific train. Someone apparently had recognized him along the way and tipped off Marshal Ireland who had posted a reward of $500 for such information. A Nevada sheriff, in response to a message from Ireland, boarded the train at Winnemucca and made the arrest when the train stopped at Humboldt Wells.

Marshal Ireland and another officer traveled by train to Winnemucca to take custody of the prisoner. During the return trip sensation began piling on sensation. While the train was passing along a bleak waste near the shores of Great Salt Lake Marshal Ireland discovered that his prisoner was not aboard.

Cannon next showed up at Promontory in custody of a deputy marshal. He had a broken nose, a large gash over the left eye and most of the skin scuffed off the left side of his face. He explained that he had accidentally fallen off the train. Naturally, the incident touched off a heated debate between Mormons and anti-Mormons and their journalistic spokesmen as to whether he had fallen off or jumped off in an escape attempt. The argument was not resolved. It appears that, whether he fell or jumped, he did not try to escape after the fall.

The next episode in the drama was the circulation of a rumor that Cannon's friends were planning to rescue him from the federal officers. The military authority at Fort Douglas sent a small body of soldiers to join the party at Promontory. The next rumor was that the rescue attempt would be made at Ogden. The soldiers aboard the train were ordered to load their guns when that city was approached. Nothing happened. At Salt Lake City the soldiers were again prepared to meet any resistance, but none was offered.

The prisoner was immediately taken before Judge Zane. United States Attorney William H. Dickson requested that bail be fixed at $25,000, justifying the abnormally large amount on the grounds that the prisoner had attempted to bribe an officer at Winnemucca; that he had tried to escape; and that he was a high church dignitary wielding immense influence over the Mormon people. F. S. Richards, Cannon's attorney, protested the "exorbitant" bail but Judge Zane granted Dickson's request and John Sharp and Feramorz Little, two of the city's most prominent citizens, were accepted as sureties. Bail was then fixed at $10,000 for each of two additional indictments charging unlawful cohabitation. Mayor Francis Armstrong and General H. S. Eldredge were accepted as sureties for these amounts. Thus the total bail was $45,000 for alleged offenses carrying a maximum penalty of $300 fine and six months imprisonment. It seemed a fantastically excessive amount at the time.

The next episode in the case was a fistic attack on United States Attorney Dickson by Hugh J. Cannon, a son of the church leader, who was infuriated by questions asked of his mother before the grand jury.

The "catechising" of Mrs. Cannon before the grand jury provoked a large mass meeting of women in the Salt Lake Theater and adoption of a memorial of protest which was taken to Washington by Emmeline B. Wells and Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson, two of Utah's most prominent women.

The climax of the drama was not reached until the day set for trial, March 17, 1886. The defendant failed to appear and so did his bondsmen. In the afternoon when the defendant again failed to appear, Sharp and Little promptly paid over the $25,000 bail. But the sureties for the two $10,000 bonds elected to test in the courts the question of excessive bail.

The Tribune, to no one's surprise, denounced the church leader's bail jumping but dealt editorially with the incident with an "I told you so" attitude. The newspaper commented:

That portion of the public which has been at all swayed by the plea that excessive bail was asked in the case against George Q. Cannon will no doubt be greatly surprised to learn that even such heavy bonds did not hold him. The other, and more intelligent portion of the public which knows that no bail is properly styled excessive which can be easily and freely given, will not be surprised at all. They have recognized from the first that it was simply a question of whether Cannon preferred to stand trial or forfeit any bond given, the amount not being material, since he would not be impoverished and the Church or its agents in the matter were well able to pay. The one thing Cannon did dread was an inside view of the penitentiary. . . .

The remainder of the editorial reiterated a theme frequently expounded by The Tribune: denunciation of top leaders who went into exile or "underground" while calling upon others to endure any hardship they might be called upon to make for the church, including imprisonment. Denunciation of the leadership was usually coupled with contemptuous or pitying criticism of those who were going to prison for the cause for meekly accepting the role of "dupes and slaves."

The bail jumping incident provoked a mixed reaction among Mormons according to Whitney, who wrote:

Many at first regretted the occurrence; for it was supposed that President Cannon's failure to appear for trial would render the situation of his brethren who might be arrested thereafter exceedingly disagreeable. The 'tremendous moral effect' that would have followed his conviction and imprisonment was also a theme much dwelt upon. Now, it was argued, it would be more difficult to convince the world of the sincerity of the Mormon leaders, and those arraigned in the future need expect no mercy. Bail would be refused them, or placed at such a figure that scarcely any would be able to procure it; and if President Taylor should be captured, one hundred thousand dollars would not suffice to secure his liberation pending trial. Such were the arguments and reasonings afloat.

While Mormons generally were not yet apprised of the fact, Cannon had simply followed President Taylor's counsel. This soon became public knowledge, and it was not long until Cannon's disapproving co-religionists were zealously justifying his actions.

As for the forfeited bail, the test over the $10,000 bonds went through the Utah courts and was transferred to Washington. There the cases were ultimately dismissed and, through the intercession of influential friends, congressional action was taken to restore the $25,000 paid over by Cannon's bondsmen.

By this time (early 1886), signs were cropping up here and there that even the wielders of the polygamy stick were growing tired of beating the church over the head with it. The Tribune, and many others, had no more illusions that the arrest of a few prominent Mormons would start a stampede of polygamists promising the courts to obey the law in the future. It is possible that, had this happened, the polygamy ruckus could have been resolved without legislation dealing more directly with church economics and political influence. In this sense, a premature solution of the polygamy issue might well have been a defeat for the cause espoused by The Tribune and a victory for the church.

Some persons removed from the scene of the crusade still harbored the belief that polygamy could be quelled with a little understanding diplomacy. One who held this view was Caleb W. West, who was appointed governor of the Utah Territory by the Democratic president, Grover Cleveland, when the administration deemed the time to be politically ripe for the removal of the Republican-appointed Governor Murray.

Governor West arrived on a beautiful spring day on May 5, 1886. He was sworn in the next day by Chief Justice Zane and, two or three days later, went to the penitentiary on what he thought was going to be a triumphant mission of reconciliation. He told the polygamous prisoners that he regretted that there existed such an unpleasant state of affairs in Utah but believed there was a remedy at hand. He explained that it would not be necessary for the Mormons to abandon the religious doctrine of polygamy but only the practice, as the conflict with the laws of the land related only to the practice, and not the belief. Most of the discussion was between the new governor and Apostle Snow.

Governor West then left to give the prisoners time to think it over. Before his second visit, the Snow cases were argued before the United States Supreme Court and that body evaded the issue by dismissing the cases for want of jurisdiction. It had earlier accepted jurisdiction in a similar case and, to make the record consistent, reconsidered that case and dismissed it on the same grounds. This left the polygamists and the anti-polygamy crusaders just about where they were before.

On the second visit the governor interviewed Apostle Snow. An official summary of the discussion furnished to the Salt Lake newspapers by the governor indicated that it followed the same general course as scores of discussions between court and defendants in the trial of the polygamy cases.

At one point the summary quoted the governor and Snow as follows:

Governor — Upon consultation with Judge Zane and Mr. Dickson [the prosecuting attorney] and their supporting the view I have suggested, I have come to say to you and your people here that we will unite in a petition to the Executive to issue his pardon in these cases upon a promise, in good faith, that you obey and respect the laws, and that you will continue no longer to live in violation of them. Snow — Well, Governor, so far as I am concerned personally, I am not in conflict with any of the laws of the country. I have obeyed the law as faithfully and conscientiously as I can thus far, and I am not here because of disobedience to any law. I am here wrongfully convicted and wrongfully sentenced.

The interview continued through several more pages, alwayscoming around to the same dead end.

The offer of amnesty was then proferred to the other polygamist prisoners with the suggestion that they take time to reflect before answering. They gave their answer in writing on May 24,1886. The closing paragraphs indicate the nature of the entire reply:

The proposition you made, though prompted doubtless by a kind feeling, was not entirely new, for we could all have avoided imprisonment by making the same promise to the courts; in fact, the penalties we are now enduring are for declining to so promise rather than for acts committed in the past. Had you offered us unconditional amnesty, it would have been gladly accepted; but, dearly as we prize the great boon of liberty, we cannot afford to obtain it by proving untrue to our conscience, our religion and our God.

As loyal citizens of this great Republic, whose Constitution we revere, we do not ask for, but claim, our rights as freemen; and if from neither local nor national authority we are to receive equity and mercy, we will make our appeal to the Great Arbiter of all human interests, who in due time will grant us the justice hitherto denied. That you may, as the Governor of our important but afflicted Territory, aid us in securing every right to which loyal citizens are entitled, and find happiness in so doing, we will ever pray,

The reply was signed by a cross-section of the most prominent names in the church including Lorenzo Snow who was soon to become its president.

Governor West was sorely disappointed by the rejection of his plan to conciliate this issue, but it was not because he had been misinformed on this aspect of the "irrepressible conflict" by The Tribune and other crusaders in the anti-polygamy movement. While the church, a few years later, did take the position urged upon the prisoners by Governor West, the time was not ripe in 1886. Indeed, some individuals were still taking the same adamant, unyielding stand on the issue in the 1930's and 1950's when they were in revolt against both the laws of the land and the Mormon establishment.

The Tribune extended Governor West a polite welcome when he arrived even though he was a southern Democrat replacing Republican Governor Murray whom The Tribune supported and admired both because of his personal qualities and because he was so detested by the church. The new governor's conciliatory visit to the imprisoned polygamists drew this rebuke from the newspaper:

There is, in the East, a large class of people who really believe that the gentiles of Utah are a bad lot. We wonder if the scene at the Penitentiary on Thursday will change their views any. When the Governor of the Territory went there, and, picking out one class of criminals, humiliated himself enough to beg them to receive a pardon from the Government, his offer was not only scornfully refused, but he was made to listen to an arraignment of the faithful officers who have been doing their duty; of the Christian church under which he grew up, and he had flung in his face not only a defiance of the Government under which he is an officer, but had it compared in cruelty to the Pagan governments of antiquity. How will the soothing syrup apostles of the East like that picture? How will the President of the United States look upon it? What will the Congressmen, who have learned to echo Caine's and Gibson's cry of persecution, think of it? Will there not some time a dim consciousness of the real facts begin to dawn upon them. . .

Of the written reply of the prisoners, The Tribune editorial continued:

There is nothing in the reply . . . which either of half a dozen of their number could not have prepared in an hour. The conclusion, then, is irresistible that the document was prepared in some depot of the "underground" and the wretches in the Penitentiary simply signed it. It is not their will, but simply the will of Cannon or Taylor or Smith, or some other skulker who proves by his acts that while he is willing for the men in the Penitentiary to rot there, he does not mean to join them. Hence all the professed devotion to a cause which is ineluded in the letter is simply the dictation of some fraud who, at a distance, explains how willing are the martyrs to suffer; but who at the same time is most determined never to join the unfortunates. .

Governor West, having received the answer to his hopeful gesture of conciliation, had to revise his stance. It was an answer he could not misconstrue. One phrase in the letter put it in a nutshell — "Had you offered us unconditional amnesty, it would have been gladly accepted." To a governor of a territory, a more precise way of putting it would have been — "Had you offered us unconditional surrender on this point, it would have gladly been accepted."

That the polygamy crusade, distasteful as it probably was to many of the hunters and all the hunted, was inflaming rather than reducing the Utah problem, was painfully apparent. A few excerpts from editorials of the period suggest that conclusion.

On May 8, 1886, under the heading "Why Were Gentiles Asked," The Tribune editorialized:

The Mormons gave Governor West a grand reception and ball last night. That was all right and proper, for Governor West, by virtue of his office and the reputation he brings with him, is entitled to every mark of respect. But why were all the prominent gentiles in the city invited? Why was it necessary to place the gentiles in the position of either seeming to slight the governor or of being on the most friendly terms with the Mormons? Some gentiles at least, are not adept in the business of seeming to be in love with the people they do not care for....

This comment was, in part, a reply to one carried a few daysearlier by the Deseret News:

The indiscriminate association of Mormons and non-Mormons, innocent and designing, chaste and immoral, can not be otherwise than bad in its results, and they ought to be frowned down and discouraged by Latter-day Saints generally, and every publication that claims to be in the interest of morality. And we would advise our correspondent, and all others who value the purity of their sons and daughters, to keep them from the contaminations of all such badly mixed gatherings. . . .

Would that the barriers between the pure and the impure, between Zion and Babylon, might be rendered stronger and, if possible, impassable. . . .

Going even further on May 1, The Tribune drew some parallelsbetween the Confederacy and the Mormon Church:

Without desiring to be disrespectful either to Jeff Davis or the Mormons, we cannot help but note striking similarity between the arguments of the two. Both, if we believe them, were original noncombatants; neither ever desired anything except their constitutional rights; both have been oppressed by an unjust government and a vicious people; both are certain that history will vindicate them. And still the world keeps on in its course, and the Republic still lives. It is not necessary to criticize the statements of either. A dozen chiefs of the Confederacy have placed on file their solemn statements that Jeff Davis was a sordid, mean, dishonest and untruthful man while he was president of the Confederacy, and we suspect that if Bishop Sharp's real sentiments could be obtained he would say the same of at least one of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church. Despite all the persecutions Jeff Davis, while parading his noncitizenship, is permitted to hurl his scorn at the Government which spared his forfeited life and has ever since protected him; the men, who with him tried to destroy this Republic and build up a slave empire are now in political control in this country. The temple at Logan is still smoking with plural marriages, and still Jeff Davis is telling of the wrongs in Alabama, and we now and then receive a mournful protest from George and John from the n underground. . . .

The Tribune frequently reiterated its reasons for opposing statehood at this period in the territory's history. Some of the reasons it advanced in editorials were that anyone who dared to express an opinion not in accord with the dominant religion in the new state would have to emigrate or fight; that statehood would probably ignite civil war in Utah; that if statehood were then given to Utah George Q. Cannon, whom The Tribune regarded as the real power in the church following the death of Brigham Young, would nominate all officers in the state, decide which laws would be repealed or passed and, in short, would govern the state as an absolute dictator.

Nonetheless, some winds of change were beginning to stir, though not discernibly at that moment; and The Tribune's campaign was moving more surely toward partial victory than the editors realized.