Carpetbag Rule Territorial Government in Utah

Utah Historical Quarterly

Vol. 26, 1958, No. 2

CARPETBAG RULE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT IN UTAH

By Everett L. Cooley

In the minds of most readers the descriptive phrase "carpetbag government" is associated primarily with the reconstruction period of southern history following the Civil War. However, as defined by Webster and accepted by some noted historians, justifiably the phrase can be applied to the administration of Colonial America by the British as well as to the administration of the territories by the United States.

Fundamentally, British colonies or plantations were never considered to be an extension of British soil to the extent that all rights of Englishmen were guaranteed thereon. The Crown and later Parliament never conceived of the idea that the colonists were eligible for the same rights and privileges as those of British subjects living in the British Isles. And it was this failure to grant colonial subjects tfie rights cherished by Englishmen which led to the loss of the colonies in the War of Independence.

Americans, while still engaged in the struggle to gain long-cherished rights and privileges, established the pattern which was to guide them for 130 years in dealing with their own "colonials." Only since acquiring noncontiguous soil have the Americans subverted the great ideal established in 1780.

One of the most vexatious problems confronting the ineffectual and loosely formed Congress of the rebellious colonies in 1780 was that of western lands. New York, holding vast claims north of the Ohio, agreed to relinquish these lands for the benefit of all the states. In the resolution of acceptance, Congress set forth the principle to guide America's future colonial policy:

The unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States . . . shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other States.

The details for the transition to statehood were prescribed in subsequent reports and ordinances. The basic principles, incorporated in the now famous Northwest Ordinance of 1787 are:

(1) That territorial government under centrally appointed officials is temporary.

(2) That the inhabitants of a territory have the right to elect their own representatives and to determine their own taxation.

(3) That the inhabitants of a territory have the right of statehood upon meeting certain conditions established by the central legislative authority.

Thus a new colonial policy based upon equality was begun. Henceforth, colonies or territories were but an extension of the nation and were entitled by right to all the benefits of equality. With the adoption of the Constitution, one more fundamental concept was pronounced. Congress had power to make necessary rules and regulations for governing territories and to create new states. Upon this basis, land settlement began and local government grew up in the West.

That the pledge of 1787 has continued to be observed has been attributed to the lack of development of a governing caste in the United States. Instead, the spoils system was the method used for the selection of territorial officials. A concomitant of the spoils system was carpetbagging. The party in power, anxious to reward the party faithful, selected territorial appointees from the states where they were in a position to gain votes for the party. The residents of the territories, having no presidential vote nor power in Congress, were overlooked. Since the territorial officers (governor, secretary, three judges, marshal, and attorney) were appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, candidates were selected with an eye to pleasing powerful politicians. This method of selection, plus the low salary the positions offered, did not lead to the highest caliber of individual being sent to preside over the destinies of the territories. However, some surprisingly good men were sent west, men with years of experience devoted to public service. Various factors influenced their decision to leave the comforts of the settled East for the hardships of the hinterlands, not least among them the opportunities to be found in lands newly opened for settlement and speculation, in recently discovered mineral wealth, and in railroad development. Nor was the possibility lost sight of that faithful and sympathetic administration of territorial affairs might lead to election as delegate to Congress. On record are many instances of appointees leading a territory into the fold of statehood and thereby being rewarded with a senatorship or governorship. Such motives can offer the only explanation for the coming west of such men as James Duane Doty and Samuel B. Axtell, Utah's fifth and tenth governors. Governor Doty devoted his lifetime to public service as legislator, commissioner, Indian agent, delegate to Congress, and congressman in Michigan and Wisconsin. Governor Axtell's service extended over twenty years and four states. He was representative to the Fortieth Congress from California in 1867, was appointed governor of Utah in 1874 and of New Mexico in 1875, and finally served as chief justice in New Mexico from 1882 to 1885.

At the opposite end of the spectrum were to be found such unsavory characters as Judge William W. Drummond and Governor John W. Dawson, both of whom openly flouted the moral code while serving in Utah. Some territories experienced the most flagrant commission of crimes at the hands of high-placed appointees. Yet these officials could not be removed by local action. The only recourse was to appeal to Washington. For unlike the British system of the eighteenth century, the Americans had corrected one weakness (from the standpoint of the administering authority) by freeing the appointees from reliance upon the colonial or territorial legislature for their salaries. The territorial officer served at the pleasure of the President and drew his pay from the federal treasury. This made him independent of the whims and desires of the "colonials." However, the official did not have unlimited power nor could he dictate local laws. His power and prerogatives were set down in the organic act which gave birth to a territory. Hence Utah's Organic Act of September 9, 1850, became the "territorial constitution'' for the guidance of territorial officials. This instrument provided the source for all governmental power exercised in the territory.

The executive power was vested in a governor, who held his office for four years. In addition the governor became commander-in-chief of the militia and performed the duties of superintendent of Indian affairs. The legislative power and authority of the territory were vested in the governor and a legislative assembly — the assembly to be chosen by the vote of the people.

Other offices provided for were those of a secretary, three judges, an attorney, and a marshal — all appointed by the President subject to approval of the Senate. The elected officials, in addition to the legislators, were: a delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States and certain unspecified township, district, and county officers.

This lack of a specific list or naming of other officers led to untold difficulties between the federal appointees and resident legislators. Problems of interpretation did not arise, however, as long as Brigham Young was governor. The Mormon governor was willing to have the legislature "elect" eligible Mormons to office. But with the arrival of non- Mormon governors on the scene, the battle lines were drawn. And victory for the Gentiles, and what they termed "supremacy of constituted authority," did not come until near the end of Utah's territorial period.

Part of the difficulty which arose between the Gentile federal appointees and the Mormons was one of Mormon or western practicality versus legal technicalities demanded by the federal appointees. This cleavage was revealed with the arrival of the first non-Mormon officers in Utah. Brigham Young, never a man to procrastinate, had launched Utah into its territorial status in the most expeditious manner by ordering a census and an election. These were completed prior to the arrival of Secretary B. D. Harris, bearer of the territorial seal and federal funds for payment of the expenses of the new government. Secretary Harris claimed the actions of the governor were not legal because of his failure to follow the letter of the law in having the secretary attest to the census and election. Within a short time the secretary and other Gentile officers made ready to depart from Utah. Whereupon Governor Young ordered the territorial marshal to take custody of the funds held by Harris and asked the territorial supreme court for its opinion regarding the intended action of Harris in returning east with the funds. The court's reply was, "We cannot give your Excellency a judicial opinion upon the subject proposed, not being your legal advisers, nor having the subject judicially before us,..."

After disclaiming their rights to do so, the judges then proceeded to give their personal opinion in a very judicial manner; not, however, before stating that they had already issued an injunction against "Horace Eldredge Esq' and all others acting by, or under the authority of the assembly, purporting to be the Legislative Assembly of the Territory, from taking or interfering with the funds and property in his [the secretary's] possession."

The very wording of their statement indicated they too held the newly elected assembly to be illegal. It is no wonder, therefore, that the judges left their posts along with Secretary Harris. These were but the first of many who came to Utah, made known their stand on the "Utah Problem," and then departed.

What was this "problem" which resulted in a continual coming and going of Washington appointees?

Certainly at the base of what the Gentiles called the "Utah Problem" was the Mormon concept of government. A Gentile soon perceived that there was not the customary separation of church and state which should prevail under the Constitution. The wording of the first (1851) Thanksgiving proclamation of Governor Brigham Young (cited by many later governors as proof of the unity of church and state) causes the reader to pause and wonder whether he is reading an excerpt from the Journal of Discourses or an official proclamation of a governor of it territory of the United States:

PROCLAMATION For a day of Praise and Thanksgiving

It having pleased the Father of all good, to make known his mind and will to the children of men, in these last days, and through the ministration of his angels, to restore the Holy Priesthood unto the sons of Adam, by which the Gospel of his Son has been proclaimed, and the ordinances of life and salvation are administered; and through which medium the Holy Ghost has been communicated to believing, willing, and honest minds; causing faith, wisdom, and intelligence to spring up in the hearts of men, and influencing them to flow together, from the four quarters of the earth to a land of peace and health; rich in mineral and vegetable resources; reserved of old in the councils of eternity for the purposes to which it is now appropriated; a land choice above all other lands; far removed from the strife, contention, divisions, moral and physical commotions, that are disturbing the peace of the nations and kingdoms of the earth.

I, Brigham Young, Governor of the Territory aforesaid, . . . Do Proclaim Thursday, the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-two, a Day of Praise and thanksgiving, for the citizens of this our peaceful Territory; in honor of the God of Abraham, who has preserved his children amid all the vicissitudes they have been called to pass; for his tender mercies in preserving the nation undivided, in which we live; for causing the gospel of His Kingdom to spread and take root upon the earth, beyond the power of men and demons to destroy; and that he has promised a day of universal joy and rejoicing to all the inhabitants who shall remain when the earth shall have been purified by fire, and rest in peace... .

In contrast, a Thanksgiving proclamation of a Gentile governor reads as follows:

THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION

Territory of Utah

Pursuant to the Proclamation of U.S. Grant, President of the United States, and in accordance with a time-honered custorn, I designate Thursday the twenty-sixth day of November A.D. 1874 as a day for Public Thanksgiving and Prayer.

I therefore request all of the people within our borders to properly observe said day.

[Signed] George L. Woods.

To the resident Mormon the latter proclamation was considered decidedly inappropriate, while the former showed no incongruity. It was proper that the sentiments of Brigham Young, governor, as the constituted executive of a United States territory, should be in harmony with the sentiments of Brigham Young, president, prophet, seer, and relevator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For had not these same people sat at the feet of the authorities of the Mormon Church and heard them proclaim time after time that "oneness and unity in all things" were the goals of Mormonism? Brigham Young in preaching to the Saints on this theme declared:

We have been witnessing, this afternoon, the world's great objection to "Mormonism," for we have had the privilege of beholding the unanimous vote of the people when the names of the officers of the Church were presented for election or rejection. We have seen the same oneness and unity this afternoon which characterize the Latter-day Saints on all occasions, and this is objectionable to the world. They say it is anti-democratic, though we think not.

John Taylor, speaking on the same theme, said:

... We are seeking to establish a oneness,. .. We want one-man power and one-God power. Would not they who cry out against it like to have one-man power if they could get it? Yes. Is there now or was there ever a political party in the United States but would seek to carry their own points? No ... We consider that union is the great principle that we ought to cultivate; union in religion, morals, politics, and everything else.

On still another occasion,the same John Taylor told the gathered Saints:

There is a little difference between our principles, or, I should say, the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and what are called democratic principles.

Democracy governs by the people alone; ... It is not with us as it is with democracy. We do not believe that any people are capable of governing themselves. There is no need of entering into an argument upon the matter before this congregation; but it is my opinion that there are no people under the heavens that now exist, nor are there any that ever did exist, that are capable of governing themselves.

These views on unity were accepted as perfectly natural and uncontroversial by the membership. For had they not been promised that they would be instrumental in effectuating the Kingdom of God here on earth, which was to have "pre-eminence over all other nations and kingdoms." In fact they were told that the "Kingdom is actually organized, and the inhabitants of the earth do not know it."

But the Saints knew the organization had been created and that they were part of it. For their Kingdom of God was not an otherworldly one, but an earthly one of here and now. And, as explained by President John Taylor, it could not exist without the guidance of God speaking through his ordained spokesman here on earth. Therefore it was not only fitting and proper that the president of the church should also be governor of the territory; it was a necessity, since it was the ordained plan.

In the light of these beliefs, is it any wonder that the Mormon "colonist" and the Gentile office-holder clashed head-on. The excuses for this clash were reflected in many minor incidents — such as the disagreement between Governor Young and Secretary Harris. The basic conflict, however, was over church monopoly in all matters. The first loyalty of the Mormons was to church and only secondly to the state and constitutional government.

This conflict was time and time again spelled out in messages and reports of the Gentile governors. Governor James Duane Doty complained that of the various powers in Utah — church, army, and federal officers — the church was indisputably the most powerful. And this complaint was registered after Brigham Young had been deposed and Gentile appointees installed in office by federal troops. Even though a Gentile occupied the governor's chair, Heber C. Kimball proclaimed:

. . . President Young is our leader, and has been all the time since the death of Joseph Smith the Prophet. He can govern his people with his hands in his pockets, and they are not governed one whit by the men that are sent here. I want to tell it, and I want they should know I tell it.

Some of the federal appointees undoubtedly recognized the problem facing them and attempted to live with it or ignore it. Governor Cumming, in an exchange of correspondence with Councilman Daniel H. Wells, pointed out that some of the acts of the territorial legislature were highly irregular if not downright illegal. It appeared to the governor that the legislature took action through joint resolution, thereby circumventing the power bestowed upon the executive by the Organic Act. Apparently Daniel H. Wells successfully defended the actions of the legislative assembly, for Governor Cumming registered no further complaints. Perhaps he recognized that "discretion was the better part of valour" and resigned himself to living with the "Utah Problem." For his discretion, Alfred Cumming has ever since been accepted by Mormondom as one of the better Gentile governors.

Other territorial officials took up the challenge to do something about the situation in Utah. For their troubles they have been characterized by Mormon writers as scoundrels and men of the lowest order. For the most part, however, they were men of average talents faced with the task of bringing a religious autocracy into conformity with a republican government. This, they soon learned, was a herculean task.

Power which by organic law was vested in the governor and the legislative council had been entirely appropriated by the legislature in some areas. This usurpation led at first only to gubernatorial protests, although it eventually was debated in the United States Supreme Court, where the case was decided in favor of the governor. Before this decision was given, however, an opera bouffe was enacted in Utah, with two sets of officials claiming the same office. The legislative assembly had for years elected the territorial treasurer and auditor. In 1886, Governor Eli H. Murray, in compliance with the Organic Act, submitted the names of two men for these positions. When the council refused to act upon the names, the governor issued the oath of office to his appointees. Arthur Pratt then instituted suit against Nephi Clayton, the elected auditor, demanding that Clayton surrender the office. A similar situation existed between James Jack, electee, and Bolivar Roberts, governor's appointee. The territorial court decided in favor of the governor's appointees, but the elective officers held the territorial funds and refused to surrender the offices. Only after the United States Supreme Court decision was the office vacated by the Mormons. In the meantime the de facto office holders drew the salaries and the de jure appointees went without.

Other "Mormon peculiarities" proved to be sources of irritation which kept the elective Mormon public servants constantly at loggerheads with Gentile appointees. Some of these peculiarities had found expression in law. Chapter eight, Section two, Laws of Utah 1851-1870, was aimed at one very vocal segment of society and provided that "no person or persons employing counsel, in any of the courts of this Territory, shall be compelled by any process of law to pay the counsel so employed for any services rendered as counsel, before, or after, or during the process of trial in the case." Still another section of the law declared that:

... no laws nor parts of laws shall be read, argued, cited, or adopted in any court, during any trial, except those enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of this Territory, and those passed by the Congress of the United States when applicable; and no report, decision or doings of any court shall be read, argued, cited, or adopted as a precedent in any other trial.

Naturally such restrictions on lawyers and judges evoked violent protest, which was reflected in the governor's message to the legislature.

One of Utah's first laws created a territorial militia bearing the title of Nauvoo Legion. Although the Organic Act made the governor the commander-in-chief of this military force, actual command was in the hands of a lieutenant general in the personage of Daniel H. Wells, counselor of Brigham Young. The high-sounding title galled many federal officers who had seen action in the Civil War, where none but Ulysses S. Grant gained such a distinction. At least four governors called the attention of the assembly to the relative independence of the militia and asked that laws be passed bringing it into line with other state and territorial militias. This the legislature refused to do. The friction ended with Governor J. W. Shaffer's forbidding the militia to assemble and the final abolishment of the organization by the Edmunds- Tucker Act of 1887.

Still another source of irritation between the opposing factions was a law of January 20, 1854, concerning the Perpetual Emigrating Fund. The objection to the act resulted from the fact that more Mormons were brought to Utah through the fund, and the chief complaint was that non-Mormons were by law forced to contribute to it. The contributions came through action of the probate judges, who took possession of unclaimed property of "deceased or abscondant persons" and transferred it to the Emigrating Fund.

An answer to this problem and a partial solution to another (that of free schools) were recommended numerous times to the legislative assembly. In 1874, Governor George L. Woods urged the passage of an escheats law which would transfer abandoned property to a fund for the benefit of public schools. His urging of legislation to benefit schools was not the first, nor the last. From the very first, the Gentile governors had recommended that free schools be instituted in Utah, recognizing the religious domination in the existing schools. Of course this religious dominance was intended by the L.D.S. Church — there was nothing inconsistent in such a practice; but to the Gentile, the forced religious instruction in tax-supported schools was an abomination as well as being unconstitutional. Not until 1890 was a satisfactory school law passed by the legislature. It was then that President Wilford Woodruff urged that:

. . . the time has arrived when the proper education of our children should be taken in hand by us as a people. Religious training is practically excluded from the public schools. . . . The desire is universally expressed by all thinking people in the church that we should have schools where the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants can be used as text-books, and where tiie principles of our religion may form part of the teaching of the schools.

This movement for religious schools the Gentiles did not oppose, but they were ready to take strong measures to assure that public schools were free and devoid of religious dominance.

Two other areas of controversy, of greater significance in any discussion of territorial government in Utah, were those of marriage and elections. Workable solutions to these thorny problems were not achieved until just before statehood in 1896. In fact, it was the solution of these problems which brought statehood to Utah.

With some justification, Gentile officials declared that free elections in Utah were a farce. In the first place, more frequently than not there was only one slate of officers presented to the electors. Secondly, a law of January 3,1855, provided:

Each elector shall provide himself with a vote [ballot] containing die names of the persons he wishes elected and the offices he would have them fill, and present it neatly folded to tiie Judge of the election, who shall number and deposit it in a ballot box; the Clerk shall then write the name of the elector, and opposite it the number of his vote.

Under such a system the vote of every elector could be accounted for. It is small wonder that the Gentiles questioned the "freedom" of such elections. Only after years of protest did the legislature in 1878 make provision for a secret ballot.

Of all her "peculiarities,'' the most peculiar was marriage as practiced in Utah. From the very beginning, Mormons were called upon by Gentile appointees to forsake their practice of marrying more than one woman. At first only by innuendo was plural marriage referred to in public utterances. After the Gentiles were entrenched in office with federal troops, innuendo was replaced with direct threat of action if polygamy were not abandoned. In addition to the practice of polygamy was the absence of legal provision for civil marriages. One governor was led to disclaim that women were given the franchise in Utah, but their marriages were not recognized by law nor did they have the right of dower. Not until the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 were these privileges conferred upon women, and then through Congressional enactment rather than local laws. That territorial officials played an important part in securing the passage of tfiese measures aimed at polygamy there is no doubt. Year after year the reports of the governors contained recommendations for corrective legislation. As a result an anti-polygamy act, striking at polygamy and church domination of politics, was passed by Congress in 1862, expanded in 1882, and re-enforced in 1887.

During twenty years of operation of the Morrill Anti-Polygamy Law of 1862, only three convictions were effected. Upon the urging of religious groups throughout the nation and repeated pleas from Gentile territorial officials, Congress enacted the famous, or infamous, Edmunds Law to deal with both marriage and politics as they existed in Utah. The Mormons viewed the measure as one which robbed them of their constitutional rights and invaded the sanctity of religious freedom. Bishop Daniel Sylvester Tuttle, speaking for the Protestant groups of Utah, said, "The true policy is to encourage the building up of an opposition in the ranks of the Mormons." This was to be achieved by giving political advantages to monogamous Mormons and Gentiles and withholding them from the pluralists through the administration of election machinery by a presidentially appointed committee of five members, "no more than three being of the same political party."

The official name of this group was the Board of Registration and Elections, but it was commonly known as the Utah Commission. "Its first duty was to adjust the local laws to the Act of Congress [of 1882], and to provide the necessary rules for conducting the registration and election."

In more direct words, the Utah Commission was to assume all responsibility for the selection of registration officials, judges of election, and establishment of precinct and legislative districts. Furthermore, the commission was to canvass all returns and issue certificates of election for those duly elected to the legislative assembly and to Congress.

The commission displayed a generous amount of energy in the discharge of its duties, which was applauded by non-Mormons and opposed by Mormons. The policy followed in appointing election officers was explained in the following words of the commission:

... In the appointment of Registration Officers, ... so far as it was practicable to do so, we selected non-Mormons. In a few counties, this was not possible, and in such cases reputable Monogamists were designated for this service. The aggregate population of all counties for which non-Mormon Registrars were appointed is about 132,000, while the whole population in counties for which Monogamists were appointed does not exceed 13,000.

The same rule was observed in the selection of Precinct

Registrars

To further carry out their responsibilities the commission redistricted the territory. In this process they were not above resorting to a bit of gerrymandering. District 8 was composed of Tooele County, Bingham Precinct, and Tintic Precinct: thus, to assure a majority of Gentiles, areas from three counties were combined into one district.

In addition to the above measures an oath was demanded of all voters requiring that they swear or affirm that:

... I am not a bigamist nor a polygamist; that I have not violated the laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polyg- amy; that I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman in the marriage relation,...

This oath, according to the second report of the commission (1883) succeeded in disfranchising 15,000 persons (this figure was quoted before the disfranchisement of women in 1887). At a later date (1887), the oath was made more inclusive and read as follows:

I being duly sworn (or affirmed) depose and say that I am over twenty-one years of age; that I have resided in the Territory of Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one month immediately preceding the date hereof; and that I am a native born (or naturalized as the case may be) citizen of the United States; that my full name is ; that I am years of age; that my place of business is ; that I am a (single or) married man, that the name of my lawful wife is ; and that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and will faithfully obey the laws thereof, and especially will obey the act of Congress of March 22, 1882, entitled "An Act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States in reference to bigamy and for other purposes"; and that I also will obey the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887, entitled "An Act to Amend an Act entitled An Act to Amend Section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy and for other purposes," approved March 22, 1882, in respect of the crimes in said act defined and forbidden, and that I will not directly or indirectly, aid or abet, counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes defined by Acts of Congress as polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery and fornication; and I further swear (or affirm) that I am not a bigamist or polygamist, and that I have not been convicted of any crime under the Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to amend Section 5352, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy and for other purposes," approved March 22, 1882; nor under the Act amendatory thereof, of March 3, 1887, and I do not associate or cohabit polygamously, with members of the other sex.

This new oath brought protests from an unexpected quarter, as revealed in the following letter:

Registration Office Stockton, Utah

May 9,1887.

W. C. Hall, Esq. Sec. Utah Commission,

Dear Sir: —

For the information of the Honorable Commissioners, I beg leave to make a brief report of progress in registration for some of the precincts in Tooele County. On Monday, May 2,1 began registration in this, Stockton precinct, and to my surprise six of the first ten I asked to register, refused; and all of the ten are Gentiles. I finished going through the Precinct, last night, and found about 25 who refused to register, all Gentiles, but two or three. At one mine, of four men there, I got only one.

The fact is this, — in a mining locality there are a great many who do not like to take any oath. Blank oaths were sent me by the League Committee, and I am satisfied, from inquiry, that if that had been presented, that from 40 to 50 per cent of the Gentile voters would have refused it. As it is, 20% have refused the oath of the Commission. I registered 119 in this Precinct; at Grantsville, 87 registered; and at Tooele, 115. Only a few Mormons refused to register.

Resp'y

Your Obedient Servant, David B. Stover

Registration Officer Tooele County

The explanation offered by the registration officer was not the only reason why the men in mining camps refused to take the oath. One of the commissioners reported that the morals or sexual relations of men in mining communities were different from those elsewhere.

A study of the minutes and reports of the commission discloses that a definite change in attitude developed on the part of some of the commissioners. Beginning in 1886 votes on issues reveal a split in the commission. The majority advocated that a more hostile and punative policy be applied to the Mormons; while the minority, in the personages of J. A. McClernand, of Illinois, and A. B. Carlton, of Indiana, favored a waiting policy to see what the existing laws and rules would accomplish. Their attitude is reflected in the several minority reports they submitted to the Secretary of the Interior.

Indicative of the less repressive policy of the minority is the letter of Chairman A. B. Carlton to deputy registrar Robert Scott, of Tooele Precinct:

Office of the Utah Commission Salt Lake City, Utah

Aug. 6,1888.

Dear Sir:

Your letter of July 31,1888, is received. When you go from house to house to make your revision of the registration list, die fact of your finding a man absent from his home is not a good reason for erasing his name from the registration list. If you find the family at home, or the usual indications that the residence is not abandoned, the presumption is that the absence is only temporary and the name should not be erased. If the man leaves the Territory on a mission or on business or pleasure, witfi the intention to return, it does not deprive him of his right to vote, unless he has in some pronounced way, by moving his family, etc. evidenced his intention to make a change of residence.

It is now too late to correct any errors that may have been made but at the September revision you should restore to the list the names of such persons who may have been erased without sufficient cause.

Very Resp. A. B. Carlton

Chairman

Other indications of a more ameliorative policy are found in the investigations by the commission of fraud and unfairness at the polls and in the removal of certain Gentiles from election offices. Nevertheless the Utah Commission, backed by the other non-Mormon territorial officials, held firm that there should be no temporizing with the Mormons on the basic "Utah Problem." Mormons must capitulate. They must accede to the will of Congress. Polygamy must be abandoned and other constructive laws must be passed by the territorial legislature to make Utah's militia, marriage, election, and school practices conform to accepted standards. Should the Mormons fail to take the necessary steps to bring about conformity, there were those in Utah who were recommending more severe punative measures.

Recommendations were sent to Congress for a more stringent test oath — one patterned after Idaho's oath, which disfranchised all Mormons. The abolition of the territorial legislative assembly was recommended, to be replaced with a federally appointed commission. The appointment of officers from Washington, D.C., was to extend downward to the county and municipal level. All polygamous persons were to be denied the privilege of filing for public lands. Terms of imprisonment were to be increased for plural marriage convictions.

Faced with not only the threat but also the probability of enactment of some or all of these measures, the Mormons gave ground. Within a few short years, beginning in 1888, the legislative assembly enacted laws providing for civil marriages, free schools, free elections, and abolition of polygamy. The Mormon or People's party was disbanded in 1890, with the membership seeking affiliation with the two national parties.

These momentous changes, accompanied by a Manifesto of the church authorities (1890) and approved by the Saints in general conference (1891), foreshadowed the termination of "carpetbag rule" in Utah. There were those among the Gentile officials, suspicious of the recent actions of the Mormons, who sought to postpone the day of their departure by proclaiming that the Mormons were only using the "reforms" to gain statehood, when they would again return to their old domination of political life. Others pointed to the changes with assurance that a new day had dawned in Utah. In the words of one commissioner :

The Utah of today is not, and never can be, what it was when Brigham Young, as prophet, seer, and revelator, dominated over his devoted followers, isolated from all the world, in secluded valleys of the Rocky Mountains; ...

To further convince the Gentiles in Utah and Washington that a real change had taken place within the church, the Mormon leaders petitioned for amnesty:

We, the first presidency and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to your excellency the following facts:

We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.

That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-Day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890. Our people are devout and sincere, and they accepted the doctrine and many personally embraced and practiced polygamy.

When the Government sought to stamp the practice out, our people, almost without exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desire to oppose the Government in anything, still felt that their lives and their honor as men were pledged to a vindication of their faith, and that their duty towards those whose lives were a part of their own was a paramount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count anything, not even their own lives, as standing in the way. Following this conviction, hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine, and imprisonment, and the immeasurable suffering borne by the faithful people no language can describe. That suffering, in abated form, still continues.

More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishments for those who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants.

According to our faith the head of our church receives, from time to time, revelations for the religious guidance of his people.

In September, 1890, the present head of the church, in anguish and prayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received the permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.

At the great semiannual conference which was held a few days later this was submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and representing every community of the people in Utah, and was by them in the most solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives.

They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day.

At the late October conference, after a year had passed by, the matter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gathered together, and they again, in the most potential manner, ratified the solemn covenant.

This being the true situation and believing that the object of the Government was simply the vindication of its own authority and to compel obedience to its laws, and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, we respectfully pray that full amnesty may be extended to all who are under disabilities because of the operation of the so-called Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker law. Our people are scattered; homes are made desolate; many are still imprisoned; others are banished or in hiding. Our hearts bleed for these. In the past they followed our counsels, and while they are thus afflicted our souls are in sackcloth and ashes.

We believe there is nowhere in the Union a more loyal people than the Latter-Day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expect to live and die on this soil.

When the men of the South, who were in rebellion against the Government in 1865, threw down their arms and asked for recognition along their old lines of citizenship, the Government hastened to grant their prayers.

To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow-citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the Government and people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle.

Have they not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims of both law and justice have been fully liquidated?

As shepherds of a patient and suffering people we ask amnesty for them and pledge our faith and honor for their future.

And your petitioners will every pray. Wilford Woodruff. H. J. Grant. George Q. Cannon. John Henry Smith. Joseph F. Smith. John W. Taylor. Lorenzo Snow. M. W. Merrill. Franklin D. Richards. Anthon H. Lund. Moses Thatcher. Abraham H. Cannon. Francis M. Lyman.

The Mormons were correct in their evaluation of their plea for amnesty, for the Gentile officials accepted this document as a truer reflection of the Mormon accommodation to federal law and accepted customs than the previously pronounced Manifesto. Governor Arthur L. Thomas and members of the Utah Commission warmly recommended to the President of the United States amnesty for the Mormons. President Benjamin Harrison responded on January 4, 1893, with the following proclamation:

By the President of the United States of America.

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas Congress, by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and by statutes-- furtherance and amendment thereof, defined the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, and unlawful cohabitation in the Territories and other places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States and prescribed a penalty for such crimes; and

Whereas on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church, through its president, issued a manifesto proclaiming the purpose of said church no longer to sanction the practice of polygamous marriages and calling upon all members and adherents of said church to obey the laws of the United States in reference to said subject-matter; and

Whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and adherents of said church have generally obeyed said laws and have abstained from plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation; and

Whereas by a petition dated December 19,1891, the officials of said church, pledging the membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation, have applied to me to grant amnesty for past offenses against said laws, which request a very large number of influential non-Mormons residing in the Territories have also strongly urged; and

Whereas the Utah Commission in their report bearing date September 15, 1892, recommended that said petition be granted and said amnesty proclaimed, under proper conditions as to the future observance of the law, with a view to the encouragement of those now disposed to become law-abiding citizens; and

Whereas during the past two years such amnesty has been granted to individual applicants in a very large number of cases, conditioned upon the faithful observance of the laws of the United States against unlawful cohabitation, and there are now pending many more such applications:

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested, do hereby declare and grant a full amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalties of said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color of polygamous or plural marriage, who have since November 1, 1890, abstained from such unlawful cohabitation; but upon the express condition that they shall in the future faithfully obey the laws of the United States hereinbefore named, and not otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the clemency hereby offered will be vigorously prosecuted.

In Witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this fourth day of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, and of the United States the one hundred and seventeenth.

Benj. Harrison

The next step toward self-rule for Utah was soon taken. A constitution was adopted with the blessings of the governor, chief justice, and Utah Commission. The great gap between Mormon and federally appointed officers had closed to the extent that two members of the Utah Commission in company with the Mormon delegation conveyed the newly adopted constitution to Washington for presentation to the President.

Statehood and freedom from federal control of the election machinery came to Utah on January 4, 1896. Her schooling for statehood under the tutelage of carpetbag officials had been a long and arduous one. Fortunately for us, one of the final official acts of the Utah Commission was the transferral of the records of the commission to the custody of the governor of the new state. These are worthy of a careful study by students of Utah history, for they will reveal that carpetbag government did exist in Utah for certain periods. At other times during her territorial days Utah was blessed with wise, devoted, but determined public servants who were doing their best to bring constitutional government to Zion. If they failed, it was human failure prompted by most trying conditions.

For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.