25 minute read
The Making of the Convention President: The Political Education of John Henry Smith
Utah Historical Quarterly
Vol. 39, 1971, No. 4
The Making of the Convention President: The Political Education of John Henry Smith
BY JEAN BICKMORE WHITE
ON MARCH 6, 1895, John Henry Smith stood before the Constitutional Convention of the territory of Utah and accepted the honor of being president of that convention. He observed that it was a proud day in his life and a landmark date in the history of the territory.
He pointed out to his fellow delegates that previous constitutional conventions in the territory had been exercises in futility. But now, with an Enabling Act of Congress to guide them and with a different atmosphere in the territory, it seemed likely that the fruit of their efforts would be the constitution of a state in the federal Union.
The delegates were entrusted by the people, he pointed out, "with the grave responsibility of presenting to them for their consideration a fundamental law, under which they expect to live, under which their children and their children's children in all likelihood may live . . .
John Henry Smith was correct in observing that in the American tradition, a constitution is a fundamental law. It is superior to statutory law and not as easily changed. It provides for the most important agencies of government. Constitutions also commonly set forth the fundamental rights of citizens.
When all of this is said, there are still other characteristics of constitutions to consider. Constitutions are commonly recognized by those who study them to be political documents. That is, they allocate power and legal authority between competing individuals and interests in society. As a familiar example, they describe the powers and limits on the powers of the various branches of government. They specify who shall have the privilege of voting and who shall not. In the thorny area of taxation, they may exempt certain groups of citizens or certain types of property from sharing in the financial support of government. Writing a constitution setting forth these rights, responsibilities, and allocations of authority is essentially a political task. This is so because the writers of constitutions, like legislators, must use the processes of discussion and voting to settle conflicts. They must make painful decisions between the competing claims of different citizens and interest groups, They must make compromises and reach consensus on a myriad of controversial matters. It is in this sense that constitution writing is a political task. With these thoughts in mind, I suggest that constitutions should be (and usually are) written by men with a background in political life, not by men untouched by the conflicts and struggles of their times.
There is another consideration. A writer on state constitutional development has pointed out that "Constitutions must be developed out of the life and aspirations of the people, not borrowed from others. Their fundamental concepts, to be useful and lasting, must be in tune with the particular culture and times."
This paper explores the political background and education of the president of the Utah Constitutional Convention of 1895, John Henry Smith. Hopefully, it will be shown that he was particularly well equipped with the political skills and the understanding of Utah's special problems in the 1890s that suited him for the position. Much of the story will be told in his own words as recorded in his personal journal and letters.
The convention president was not plucked from political obscurity. He was an active politician who by 1895 had spent more than two decades developing political skills and friendships. Smith always described himself as a "lifelong Republican" and was intensely partisan to that cause. He was faithful to the political aims of the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In addition, he seems to have realized that the non-Mormon citizens of the territory had to be reached across bridges of personal friendship and trust before statehood could be achieved. He was aware, then, of the special problems of writing a constitution for a state with Utah's unusual social, religious, and economic culture.
John Henry Smith was a big man, with a commanding presence and a talent for oratory. Although his formal education was brief, he read a great deal, mostly in history, biography, and essays, often noting the titles and commenting on the contents in his daily journal. He seems to have enjoyed visiting and, as the sociologists of today would put it, "interacting" with other knowledgeable human beings. These social interactions seem to have added to his knowledge and understanding of others — particularly the non-Mormon people whose backgrounds and political aspirations had to be taken into account in the movement for statehood.
The governmental positions held by John Henry Smith were not numerous. In 1872 he was appointed assistant clerk of the territorial house of representatives, and in the same year he was chosen assistant clerk of the constitutional convention. In 1876 he was elected to the Salt Lake City Council, and in 1881 he won a seat in the territorial legislature. It was primarily as an informal actor in the political process, rather than as an officeholder, that John Henry Smith gained his political education.
His experience in politics may be traced through three roles that he played in the two and a half decades prior to the achievement of statehood: one, as a church leader; two, as a participant in the political planning and actions of the church leadership; and, three, as a Republican party organizer and promoter.
It is not always easy to sort out these roles. On many occasions he seems to have worn three hats at once. At times it is not easy to decide whether Smith's political actions were directed by the First Presidency or undertaken on his own (although probably with their tacit approval). It must not have been easy for his contemporaries in the outlying stakes to distinguish between his role as a church authority at conference on Sunday and his role as a Republican party organizer in the same town on Monday. 8 Yet, he seems to have seen little conflict between the demands of his various roles.
CHURCH LEADER
A prominent member of the Mormon Church, Smith served as a missionary and later as mission president in Europe. He became a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in October 1880. As a churchman he traveled widely in Utah and in the surrounding states and territories of Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. He also transacted church business in Mexico and traveled on the European continent. John Henry Smith knew there was a world outside of Utah, and he knew that the destiny of the Mormon people was to a great extent in the hands of powerful individuals outside the church.
Besides giving him the opportunity to travel and enlarge his understanding, his position as a church leader provided him with opportunities to develop the art of settling conflicts between individuals and factions. Smith seems to have been a favorite "troubleshooter," for he was sent by the church leadership on many occasions to wards and stakes where some dissension had been noted. His mission was to settle the difficulty or to decide appeals from the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts so common at that time.
During these journeys, he formed a wide circle of friendships, an asset to anyone in political life.
POLITICAL MISSIONARY
A second role was that of furthering the political aims of the church leadership, both within and outside the territory. Among the most important of these aims during the 1880s and early 1890s were the repeal or softening of the enforcement of anti-polygamy laws and test oaths, the defeat of any legislation aimed at weakening the church (such as confiscation of church property), and most important-—statehood. The latter was the most desired because it would rid the territory of the federal officials and permit a greater degree of law-making autonomy. To further these aims, Smith was sent on several political missions. In the limited scope of this paper it will be possible to present only a few typical examples of these activities.
One of the most impressive experiences of Smith's lifetime occurred in the winter of 1882. In mid-February President John Taylor asked him to go with Apostle Moses Thatcher to Washington, D. C, to see what might be done to block passage of an anti-polygamy measure, the Edmunds bill. He met and visited with several members of Congress and presented a petition of protest bearing more than fifty-one thousand signatures to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. His efforts were fruitless, but he learned a bitter lesson about the power of numbers in politics and about the depth of feelings in other parts of the nation against the Mormon practice of plural marriage.
After sitting all day in the House gallery, he described his sense of anger and frustration over the course of events. This staunch Republican also acknowledged that the Democrats in the House had struggled against the bill's passage. He wrote in his journal on March 13:
On the following day, March 14, he sadly observed in his journal that the Democrats who had voted for the bill were really opposed to it but "could not in their judgement vote against the bill without ruining their chances for reelection." He now understood, if he had not before, how strongly the tide of national opinion was running against the Mormons.
After the bill was signed by President Chester A. Arthur, John Henry Smith returned to Utah. Here numbers counted, too, but part of the purpose of the Edmunds Act was to cut down the number of Mormons who could vote or hold office in the territory by eliminating any who practiced polygamy. The act also provided for a five-man committee (known as the Utah Commission) to supervise registration and elections.
The challenge of the Edmunds Act called for a plan of action, and for the next few months Smith's journal shows a mounting activity aimed at holding political control of the territory. He played a part in much of this activity, as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the church and as a member of the somewhat mysterious Council of Fifty.
Almost as soon as he returned from Washington, he met as one of the members of the secret Council of Fifty (made up mostly of the top leadership of the church) to discuss plans for a new convention to draw up a constitution. On April 5, 1882, he noted that the council had met and decided that no minority representation would be put in the new constitution. "It was also decided," Smith added, "that nothing should be done or said in regard to plural marriage." He also described a meeting of the Twelve Apostles in which provisions of the proposed constitution were discussed. A few days later the convention of 1882 adopted the document.
It can be seen that although formal political power lay with officeholders, such non-governmental structures as the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles and the unique body known as the Council of Fifty exercised an enormous — often decisive -— power in the political affairs of the territory. This informal power was soon to be challenged with the arrival of the Utah Commission to administer the election laws and with the intensification of the federal government's "crusade" against polygamists.
This called for strengthening the political solidarity of Mormon voters. It also greatly increased the desire for statehood and freedom from the administration of anti-polygamy laws by federal officials in the territory.
At the end of 1882 John Henry Smith was called to preside over the European mission of the Mormon Church, with headquarters in Liverpool, England. Upon his return to the United States in the spring of 1885 he took some time to travel in the East and to visit non-Mormon relatives in New England. Summing up the predicament of the Saints in a letter to his cousin, Joseph F. Smith, who was in Hawaii to avoid prosecution for unlawful cohabitation, he observed that there were bitter feelings against the Mormons by easterners, who, he said, were "wrought up by the false stories, and I see no chance to change the current of public opinion."
In Utah, he found conditions appalling. He recalled that he had "found regular panic existing among the people," with men, women, and children slipping from place to place," his own family in four different places, and the church president and several apostles in hiding. He added somewhat critically, "We seem to have no defined policy but are trusting to luck. I don't know how it is possible for men with large families to continue the dodging business very long when they have no means to support themselves or families with. I can see no way out of the present business only to stand and take it." It was another time of helplessness and frustration for John Henry Smith.
There was still some political power to be wielded within the territory, through the legislature, and this could be largely controlled through the Mormon People's party. That summer Smith and Heber J. Grant set about to pick and put into office cooperative candidates, but they were not entirely successful. Smith indicated in a letter to Francis M. Lyman that he could not purge some of the uncooperative legislators in Morgan and Summit counties "without hurting the feelings of the people." He was learning that when persuasion fails in politics it is sometimes wise not to force an issue.
At this same time — in July of 1885 — Smith noted that "the heat" had become intense, and he was not referring to the weather. On July 2 he recorded in his journal that he had been arrested by U.S. Marshal H. F. Collin for illegal cohabitation but released for "lack of evidence." On July 21 he observed that the federal officers were keeping a close watch on him and that his mother's home in Provo had been raided. He had noted earlier in the year that "everyone of us may have to go to the pen. I feel perfectly willing to do so if needs be, but I had much rather stay out. I know that plural marriage is from the Lord and I hope to be able to meet with fortitude whatever he may require of me."
Why was Smith fortunate enough not to have to spend time in the penitentiary? In describing his arrest and immediate release by the commissioner, he acknowledged that many polygamists had been "sent to the pen for half what they proved against me, but it was my good fortune to have a friend or two at Court and the commissioner was one of them. . . . Personal friendships are my only security at the present, but I cannot as yet make up my mind to run."
In letters to Joseph F. Smith, who was then second counselor to President John Taylor, he was candid about the value of his non-Mormon friends. He said he felt that the Lord was using some outsiders "who are personally my warm friends and will do all they can for me ... ." But there was still a note of caution:
It is evident that by this time John Henry Smith had built some bridges of friendship into the non-Mormon community; it is also evident that he was not sure just how much weight they would bear.
During the late 1880s the prospects for statehood often seemed dim. With the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887, church property was escheated, and tighter controls over the electoral process were instituted. Consequently, the desire for statehood was intensified, and efforts to gain this elusive goal frequently were noted in Smith's accounts of meetings with the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles. He reported in his journal on August 4, 1887, that it was unanimously agreed by a group of the leading brethren that the statehood question would be pushed. On August 12 he wrote that costs of attaining statehood had been discussed and that a half million dollars probably would be required. The next day, action was taken at a council meeting.
Besides church funds, private contributions evidently were also needed. John Henry Smith noted in his journal on October 10 that he was arranging to borrow some money and would give one thousand dollars to the state movement.
Money was not all that would be needed to attain statehood. There was the nagging question of polygamy. Although this may have been more of an emotional than a real issue for those who opposed statehood because they feared economic and political domination by church leaders, it had a powerful appeal in Washington, D. C. It could not be ignored. Could it be abandoned — at least temporarily? Smith appears to have entertained the idea. In a letter to his cousin on April 3, 1888, he wrote:
This seems to have been only a bit of speculation on the part of Smith. For despite the fact that the constitution drawn up in 1887 contained an anti-polygamy clause, Wilford Woodruff did not seem inclined at that time to remove this barrier to statehood. President Woodruff was quoted by Smith as stating at a meeting in the Manti Temple in May of 1888 that "We won't quit practising Plural Marriage until Christ shall come."
The political fortunes of Mormons outside of Utah were also affected by polygamy. In Idaho a test oath effectively disfranchised all Mormons, causing some to withdraw from the church temporarily in order to vote. In Arizona, where Mormons were felt by many to hold the balance of political power, it was agreed that those who were practicing plural marriage should not try to run for office. It was also agreed that they would vote with the Democratic party for that territory's delegate to Congress.
The election of 1888 brought a new sense of urgency to those in Utah who were working for statehood, for it brought a change in the presidency of the United States. The election of a Republican, Benjamin Harrison, over Democrat Grover Cleveland was greeted with misgivings by many in the territory. Rightly or wrongly it was felt that the Democratic party nationally was more sympathetic to the Mormons, less inclined toward vigorous enforcement of the anti-polygamy statutes, and more likely to grant statehood for Utah. A contemporary of John Henry Smith, Abraham H. Cannon, reported that a majority of the speakers at a meeting in the opera house "seemed to feel that the election of Harrison meant death to 'Mormonism.' "
A group of the apostles and other leaders met on November 13 and agreed to make a last-minute effort to get into the union before the Democrats left power. Not only were they unable to do so, but it was soon evident that new legislation designed to break the political power of the Mormons might be passed. Within two years, victories of the non-Mormon Liberal party in Salt Lake City and Ogden showed that a reconsideration of the political strategy and tactics of the church leaders was in order.
By the early months of 1890, church leaders faced some pressing problems with regard to party politics, not only in Utah but in other areas where Mormon political strength was felt and feared. In the deliberations and actions of the next few years, John Henry Smith was deeply involved.
Evidently the church political strategists at this time were following a "reward your friends and punish your enemies" policy. The journals of Smith, Abraham H. Cannon, and others show that the time had come in the surrounding areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and Arizona to reward those who were likely to be effective in furthering statehood for Utah and in keeping test oaths out of their own constitutions. Sometimes this involved active support of Republicans; always it involved efforts to keep from appearing to "meddle" in partisan politics — for fear of adverse reactions.
By mid-1890, the church leaders came to grips with the problems of political support for candidates in Idaho, Wyoming, and Arizona. At a meeting of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, First Presidency, and other leading churchmen on July 31 it was resolved that the Mormon people in Idaho be instructed "not to vote or meddle in politics, because the anti-Mormon sentiment is so strong that trouble would most likely follow those who cast votes." Smith was sent to Wyoming to urge the Saints as far as possible to vote the Republican state ticket, "as a reward to Delegate [J. M.] Carey and his party forgetting Wyoming admitted as a State without any anti-Mormon legislation in the charter, and giving women the franchise." It was noted by Apostle Abraham Cannon that "the Democrats when they had the power to do us good were afraid, and betrayed us so that now we feel as though the Republican Party should be tried to see if they will be fair to us."
A hands-off policy was adopted for Arizona in 1890. Although church leaders were by now doubtful of the ability of Arizona Democrats to help further their goals, they feared that they would be open to charges of ingratitude and fickleness if they switched to the Republican. "It was finally decided," Abraham H. Cannon noted, "to leave it with our people there to divide and vote either Republican or Democratic as their inclinations might direct."
The following year, when a constitutional convention was in progress in Arizona, this policy was changed. An instrument of this change was John Henry Smith, who went with John Morgan, a member of the church's First Council of Seventy, on a combined political and religious mission to that state. Not only did he carry written authorization from the First Presidency to counsel the Saints in prudent courses of action, but he also had glowing letters of introduction to Arizona Republicans from three of his non-Mormon friends who were federal judges — Charles S. Zane, C. W. Bennett, and G. M. Bartch — and from United States Marshal E. H. Parsons. They praised him as a staunch Republican and pointed out that he had considerable influence with Mormon voters.
He had a mission of some diplomatic delicacy to perform, one in which Mormons, Republicans, and Democrats would figure. One aim was to block a Republican-supported test oath that would have disfranchised polygamous Mormons. He started by traveling to San Francisco to renew an old friendship with a former Democratic governor of Arizona, Conrad M. Zulick, then continued on to Arizona. Reporting on the visit to the constitutional convention in Phoenix, the two men wrote to the First Presidency:
Evidently the time had come to divide the Arizona Mormons between the national parties, which meant encouraging Republicanism among the Saints. No assignment could have brought more joy to John Henry Smith. He told the First Presidency that the situation was "quite favorable for the organization of the two parties" since there were "brethren ready and prepared to take hold of the Republican party and perfect its organization among the people."
This is only one of many examples that could be cited to show the wide range of Smith's political activities in the early 1890s outside of Utah. He had ample opportunities to dabble in politics in Colorado, where he frequently visited his second wife, Josephine, in Manassa. In 1890 he reported that he had thrown influence to Senator Henry M. Teller (a Republican at that time) who had asked for Mormon aid and promised to do all he could for the Mormons. In 1892 he wrote to relatives in Colorado requesting their help in keeping Mormons from going to the Populist or the Democratic party because it would affect the welfare of the entire Mormon people. Similar political activities of Smith in Wyoming and Idaho can be seen during this same period.
The entire story of the Woodruff Manifesto in 1890, the division of the Mormon People's party and the non-Mormon Liberal party along national party lines from 1891 through 1893 need not be recounted here. Switching from a policy of official neutrality toward national political parties agreed upon in 1890, church leaders decided in 1891 to disband the church-dominated People's party and help organize along national party lines. John Henry Smith played a part in these activities, along with a number of other prominent Mormons and non-Mormons, Smith reported that he, President Woodruff, and George Q. Cannon, first counselor in the First Presidency, had talked over the political situation with some non-Mormon friends and decided it was best to organize the Republican party. "President Woodruff said he was a Republican and I said I was." The following day Smith reported that he had spent most of the day buttonholing men to find out what their politics were if they had any. He was given the approval of President Woodruff, who told him to select men he wanted to go with him in that work.
At this time, according to Abraham H. Cannon, the aim of church leaders was to keep the two political parties evenly divided in the territory. Mormons were to refrain from seeking political office and to try to find "honorable Gentiles" to fill positions. The bitterness between Mormons and the non-Mormon federal office holders was beginning to dissolve, and everything possible was to be done to foster this atmosphere as a necessary condition for statehood.
During this time, John Henry Smith was frequently in the company of prominent non-Mormon Republicans in the city — or out in the territory pursuing his religious and political duties.
At this point, the activities of church leader, political missionary for the church, and Republican partisan seemed to be entirely harmonious and all furthering the goal of statehood.
REPUBLICAN PARTISAN
If all these activities seemed entirely compatible to John Henry Smith, they would not always seem so to others. As he played his third role of Republican partisan — often indistinguishable from his other roles — he was to learn that in party politics you can lose friends as well as make them. He was caught up in the controversy over whether church leaders should be in partisan politics at all. He was also criticized for being overzealous and personal in his attacks on Democrats.
Abraham H. Cannon wrote that Smith's political activities were the subject of a lengthy discussion by the Quorum of Twelve Apostles early in 1892. He recalled:
A call for a vote of approval of Smith's activities was too much for the Democratic apostles. Franklin D. Richards said he knew of times when John Henry had "caused great offense by calling those who did not believe as he did some pretty hard names, and he for one did not approve of such talk. He gave Bro. Smith a rather severe rebuke." The matter was withheld from a vote. John Henry Smith confessed that he was somewhat hurt by remarks at the meeting but felt that the apostles had parted feeling "first rate." Perhaps.
The following month John Henry Smith went to Washington, D. C, as part of a Republican delegation urging statehood immediately. This was in opposition to the limited self-government or home rule bill sponsored by Utah's Delegate-to-Congress John T. Caine, a Democrat. This trip gave him an opportunity to meet prominent Republican office holders, including Secretary of State James G. Blaine. Again he carried letters from his friends among the non-Mormon Republicans of the territory, certifying to his support of the Republican cause and his influence among the Mormons of Utah. The visit of Smith and other Republicans was regarded by Democrat Caine as a political ploy to seize credit for furthering statehood and to see that Democrats did not get credit for passing a home rule bill. Caine also commented on the spectacle of Mormon Democrats and Republicans opposing one another along party lines and expressed fears that "party feeling" would lead to bitterness and estrangement among the brethren.
This was only a prelude to the election of 1892, in which both John Henry and Joseph F. Smith participated actively on the Republican side. As a counterweight to these two prominent churchmen, Apostle Moses Thatcher spoke at the Democratic territorial convention and subsequently entered into an exchange of public letters with John Henry Smith.
These were not confined to lofty debates cn the issues but sometimes included personal innuendos and speculations on the Democratic or Republican leanings of Lucifer. No wonder some of the Saints were surprised and puzzled by the sight of such political dissension in the highest councils of the church, where unity had always been the ideal.
Was it proper for church leaders to be in partisan politics at all? There was much pressure on the First Presidency to show — publicly at least — a kind of benign impartiality toward the two national parties. This was frequently pressed by Democrats, who feared that the church leaders' influence in strengthening the Republican party was going too far. To avoid this, should all the highest leaders withdraw from partisan politics and take vows of political silence? President Wilford Woodruff stated, in essence, that all church members were free to participate in political affairs and that no one would be coerced to vote for one party or another. He did not put a stop to the partisan activities of John Henry Smith.
It would have been exceedingly difficult for Smith to have hidden his Republican sympathies in 1892, or at any other time. For him the Republican party was the instrument of his secular faith; it was his "political church," so to speak. He believed profoundly and sincerely in the principles of the party as he understood them. He felt the Republican party was the salvation not only of the Mormons but of the nation, despite such blows to his faith as the passage of the Edmunds Act by Republicans in 1882. He believed that when Mormons had studied the history of both parties, Utah would be Republican. Good sense would dictate this, he felt, not the Republican influence of prominent church leaders.
Did Smith ever realize that his influence as a church leader might make it difficult to resist his appeals on behalf of his "political church"? The answer is, clearly, yes. He sometimes warned others against using pressure or "church influence" in politics, and he sometimes emphasized that he was speaking as an individual in asking for political support. But it was difficult for him to see how a Mormon could be a Democrat. He wrote to a friend:
John Henry Smith continued to do what he thought was right in partisan politics. At a meeting of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles on October 12, 1893, it was decided that "all of the Presidency, Twelve, Presidents of the Seventies, Presidency of Stakes and Bishopric keep out of politics. Except as the Presidency of the Church might wish." Apparently the Presidency wished John Henry Smith to continue his work, for his letters and journals for the next two years show no abatement of his political activity. He was playing all three roles with zest and satisfaction.
In 1894 Utahns elected a Republican delegate to Congress, Frank J. Cannon, son of George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency. They also elected delegates to a constitutional convention, in accordance with the Enabling Act which had finally been passed by Congress earlier in the year. Utah was at last on the threshold of statehood — and voting Republican in the bargain. John Henry Smith's fondest dreams were coming true!
He reported that on November 6 he had voted the straight Republican ticket. The day after the election he recorded with much satisfaction that
His joy was short-lived. There were charges of fraud in the Salt Lake City Third Precinct and demands for an examination of the ballots by the Utah Commission. This Democratic-dominated body was the last group of men in the world in whom John Henry Smith wanted to rest his fate. He was not surprised when their examination showed that he was fifty votes short of election. He was determined to fight for his seat and did so through the courts. Several of the most prominent non- Mormon Republican judges and lawyers in the territory handled his case; three prominent non-Mormon Democratic lawyers defended the action of the commission in denying the certificate of election. The result was a standoff. The Utah Commission was prohibited by the court from opening all the ballot boxes but it retaliated by refusing to certify Smith's election on the basis of the first count. He filed an affidavit with the convention on the opening day and placed the issue in the hands of the convention. This political hot potato was handed to the credentials committee, which promptly reported that it wanted the matter settled by the whole convention. Forced to make a decision, the committee voted to recommend the seating of the delegates who had filed affidavits. The following day John Henry Smith was elected president of the convention.
THE CONVENTION PRESIDENT: AN OVERVIEW
Constitutions, it may be said in summarizing, are political documents, written to reflect the needs and desires of the people who are to be governed under them. The finished products are always less than perfect in the eyes of any one segment of society, for conflicting claims must be reconciled and compromises must be made. This, it would seem, must be the work of politicians — men who are skilled in the arts of diplomacy, compromise, and consensus building. This is not to suggest that they should be lacking in principles or a high sense of purpose. As John Henry Smith observed, convention delegates are making decisions that will affect not only their own generation but the lives of their children and their children's children, if they do their job well. Their task, then, is to produce a document that will be accepted by various and conflicting groups in their own time, and still survive in years to come.
In 1895, Mormons and non-Mormons, Republicans and Democrats, sat down together to complete the last task remaining before finally attaining statehood. Some may prefer to think that this job was done by "statesmen" who were above the religious and political conflicts of their times. The evidence shows that the opposite is true. Both Mormons and non-Mormons among the delegates had lived through the bitter battles of the past and were eager to move into a new era. It was not because they stood above the events of their times but because they understood them so well that they were determined to succeed.
For their president they chose a man whose life reflected the long struggle for statehood. He had shared the burdens and fought the battles of his own people. At the same time, he had realized how dependent the Saints were on overcoming the hostility of the rest of the nation. He had cultivated friendships among the non-Mormons of the territory through his business and political activities. If he lost a little lustre and hurt a few feelings in his zeal for the Republican cause, this was a price he was willing to pay for his convictions. It was all part of his political education.
Perhaps Smith's greatest contribution to the statehood effort was his ability to reach across religious lines. The attainment of statehood did not mean the end of Mormon and non-Mormon conflicts over church influence in Utah politics. There was a new era of bad feeling in the first decade of the twentieth century, arising out of the hearings on seating Senator Reed Smoot and the role played by Mormon President Joseph F. Smith in Utah politics. On October 13, 1911, John Henry Smith died suddenly. The editor of the bitterly anti-Mormon Tribune paid him a tribute that must have been galling to his colleagues in the church leadership.
Men like John Henry Smith are always needed to carry out difficult political tasks. Not because they are above the battle, but because they have been part of it. Not because they lack firm convictions, but because they realize their views cannot be forced upon others in a free society. Not because they are untouched by contemporary conflicts, but because they have learned to understand the needs and desires of their opponents. Such a man has had a political education to fit him for a political task. Such a man was John Henry Smith.
For full citations and images please view this article on a desktop.
