Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 45, Number 4, 1977

Utahin National Fbliti

UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY EDITORIAL STAFF MELVIN T. SMITH, Editor

STANFORD J. LAYTON, Managing Editor MIRIAM B. MURPHY, Associate Editor JANET G. BUTLER, Assistant Editor

ADVISORY BOARD O F EDITORS THOMAS G. ALEXANDER, Provo, 1980

MRS. INEZ S. COOPER, Cedar City, 1978 S. GEORGE ELLSWORTH, Logan, 1978 GLEN M. LEONARD, Bountiful, 1979

DAVID E. MILLER, Salt Lake City, 1979 LAMAR PETERSEN, Salt Lake City, 1980 RICHARD W. SADLER, Ogden, 1979

HAROLD SCHINDLER, Salt Lake City, 1978 GENE A. SESSIONS, Bountiful, 1980

Utah Historical Quarterly was established in 1928 to publish articles, documents, and reviews contributing to knowledge of Utah's history. The Quarterly is published by the Utah State Historical Society, 603 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Phone (801) 533-5755.

Members of the Society receive the Quarterly and die bimonthly Newsletter upon payment of the annual dues; for details see inside back cover.

Single copies, $2.00.

Materials for publication should be submitted in duplicate accompanied by return postage and should be typed double-space with footnotes at the end.

Additional information on requirements is available from the managing editor. The Society assumes no responsibility for statements of fact or opinion by contributors.

The Quarterly is indexed in Book Review Index to Social Science Periodicals, America: History and Life, and Abstracts of Popular Culture.

Second class postage is paid at Salt Lake City, Utah.

ISSN 0042-143X

H I S T O R I C A L QUARTERLY

Contents FALL 1977 / VOLUME 45 / NUMBER 4

IN THIS ISSUE

323

THE GREAT PROTECTIONIST, SEN. REED SMOOT OF UTAH THE WAY WE WERE: A PHOTOGRAPHIC ESSAY TEAPOT DOME REVISITED: REED SMOOT AND CONSERVATION IN THE 1920s . .

ALLEN

325

BUTLER

346

ALEXANDER

352

JAMES

JANET

THOMAS

THAT SMOKE-FILLED R O O M : A UTAHN'S ROLE IN THE 1920 GOP CONVENTION

G.

JEFFREY

B.

G.

L.

SWANSON

369

JAN SHIPPS

380

THE PUBLIC IMAGE OF SEN. REED SMOOT, 1902-32 BOOK REVIEWS

401

BOOK NOTICES

412

INDEX

415

THE COVER Flags, banners, a parade, and thousands of citizens greeted President William Howard Taft during his visit to Salt Lake City in September 1909. Utah State Historical Society photograph from the album of H. R. Waldo, Sr. © Copyright 1977 U t a h State Historical Society

J. K E N N E T H DAVIES. Deseret3S Sons of Toil: A History of the Worker Movements of Territorial Utah, 1852-1896

NOTARIANNI

401

W. TAYLOR

402

Meadows: An American Legend and a Monumental Crime . M E L V I N T. S M I T H

403

HERBERT H A R K E R .

PHILIP

Turn

F.

Again

Home WILLIAM W I S E . Massacre at

SAMUEL

Mountain

Books reviewed G. M I C H A E L M C C A R T H Y . Hour of Trial: The Conservation Conflict in Colorado and the West, 1891-1907 STEPHEN MIKESELL

406

DALLIN H . O A K S and MARVIN S. H I L L .

Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith

A. K E N T POWELL

407

WILLIAM D. R U S S E L L

408

ANGIE D E B O . Geronimo: The Man, His Time, His Place . . BERNARD L. FONTANA

410

D O N N A H I L L . Joseph Smith: The First Mormon . .

DOUGLAS H. T H A Y E R . Under

Cottonwoods and Other Mormon Stories . . .

.

the STUART

A. GALLACHER

411

In this issue Upon the morning of Utah statehood, the Spokane Spokesman Review greeted the forty-fifth state with the admonition that as a member of the sisterhood of states she was now expected "to conform to the usages of polite society."

The Indianapolis Sentinel offered a similar welcome, asking Miss Utah to "kindly remember that Uncle Sam is prejudiced in favor of monogamy for his girls." As one turns the pages of the large statehood clipping file at the Utah State Historical Society, he sees the nation's newspaper publishers stepping forth one by one to chide Utah for her controversial past and to ask for better things from her in the future. Clearly, to use a modern term, Utah approached the twentieth century with a serious image problem.

No one person did more, during the first third of the twentieth century, to promote a positive image for the state of Utah than Reed Smoot. U.S. senator from 1903 until 1933, Smoot, as the above photo suggests, rose to a position of significant influence and visibility in national affairs. Articles presented in this issue reveal him in a few of his many roles during that busy thirty-year period.

Specifically, we see him as a champion of the protective tariff, a spokesman for certain conservation interests, a Republican party regular influencing the course of an important national convention, and a public figure whose image changed greatly over time. The total, perhaps greater than the sum of its parts, is to suggest that as Reed Smoot led Utah's march into the national mainstream, both he and the state found rapid acceptance. This was a classic moment in Utah history: the right personality and the right circumstance interacting to consummate a great change.

The Great Protectionist, Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah

BY J A M E S B. A L L E N

JLVEED SMOOT IS BEST KNOWN in American history as the great advocate of a protective tariff, and he would have been proud to be so remembered.

He entered the Senate when High Republicanism was at full tide. In that tradition he fought to promote the interests of American business, industry, and agriculture. The tariff, he thought, was the most effective weapon in the crusade. Although he had a personal financial stake in the sugar and woolen industries of Utah, he sincerely believed that a strong tariff was in the best interest of all segments of the American economy.

His years in the Senate saw the apex of American tariff rates and culminated in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 with the highest duties ever imposed by the United States.1 When Reed Smoot entered the Senate in 1903 the Dingley Tariff of 1897 was still in operation. This Republican measure had completely negated the intent of the liberal Wilson-Gorman law of 1894 by increasing the average rate on dutiable imports to 49 percent, the highest point yet in American tariff history.2 Of particular interest to Smoot were the Opposite: Sen. Reed Smoot. Utah State Historical Society collections, courtesy of Mrs. A. F. Cardon.

Dr. Allen is professor of history at Brigham Young University and assistant church historian in the Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The author expresses his deep appreciation to Mark Walsh for research assistance on this paper.

1 In 1931 total imports as a percent of the finished commodity output of the country amounted to 8.7, the lowest rate in history, and the average duty on imports amounted to 53 percent, the highest in history. Don D. Humphrey, American Imports (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1955), p. 101. • Ibid, p. 100. One reason that the climate seemed right for imposing new duties in 1897 was tiiat the federal treasury was running serious deficits, leading President McKinley to call a special session of Congress to deal solely with import duties and federal revenue. With the need for revenue as a catalyst, the new law rehnposcd the iggrcssive protectionist policy Republicans had been promoting since the Civil War and of which Reed Smool would become the most ardent advocate. Thus, as in other tariff laws, the problem of revenue was inextricably bound with that of industrial protection. Tariff historians sugars! that these two matters ought always t.> have been considered separately, so that a more responsible policy for both could he formulated.

See F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States (New York: Capricorn Books, 1961). pp. 325-57.

326

Utah Historical

Quarterly

duties on sugar and wool. Much had been said about protecting the infant beet sugar industry in the West, and this soon became a special concern of the Utah senator. The same was true with regard to wool: duties that had been completely removed in 1894 were restored. Other imports on which new or higher duties were placed included hides, silks, linens, chinaware, and certain iron and steel manufactures.

By 1909 the climate was right for an attempt to revise tariff rates downward. Pressure for revision came not only from Democrats but also from Progressive Republicans who were concerned with the high consumer costs created by rigid, near exclusionary, protective policies. In addition, the muckrakers were making the American public painfully aware of the growing power of the trusts and their influence on tariff legislation, all of which supported the feeling that the rising cost of living was not unconnected with tariff policy. Even high protectionists wrere ready to reconsider the Dingley law, recognizing that its hasty construction made it technically imperfect and difficult to administer. Besides, the Republican platform of 1908, influenced strongly by Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressives, pledged a revision of the tariff. Republican presidential candidate William Howard Taft personally called for a reduction, and party leaders agreed that a special session of Congress should be called immediately after the inauguration to perform the work of revision.3 Immediately after the sweeping election of Taft, the House Ways and Means Committee held special hearings on the tariff during November and December 1908 and approved a bill introduced by Rep. Henry Clay Payne, chairman of the committee. The bill displayed a generally downward revision of tariff rates, though duties on certain textiles, gloves, and hosiery were materially increased. But in the Senate the logrolling for continuing high protection became evident. Nelson W. Aldrich, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Reed Smoot of Utah, a newly appointed committee member, were both ardent protectionists.

After committee hearings, Aldrich introduced a bill on the floor of the Senate that made few concessions to revisionist sentiment; it was passed on July 18, 1909.

In the meantime, Taft had scarcely lifted a finger to fulfill his promise of substantial tariff revision. Not until Senate and House conferees met to iron out their differences did Taft exert any pressure 3 See Taussig, Tariff History, p. 362; Percy Ashley, Modern Tariff History (New York: Howard Fertig, 1970), pp. 237-39; Thomas Walker Page, Making the Tariff in the United States (Washington, D . C : Brooking Institution, 1930), pp. 21-22.

The Great Protectionist

327

at all. He finally used his influence to bring from them a compromise bill, which then passed both houses quickly.

Senate Progressives protested loudly., for even though the PayneAldrich Tariff was not as blatantly protectionist in tone as the tariff of 1897, it represented no basic change in policy.4 Duties on sugar and wool remained largely unchanged; and rates on such things as cutlery, finished razors, nickel and its alloys, the better grades of cotton goods, and higher grades of paper were advanced. Total reductions were more numerous than advances, but many of the reductions were on products of minimal importance while the advances on such things as textiles had a definite influence on foreign trade as well as domestic prices. In addition, many of the schedules included the so-called jokers—obscure changes working to the advantage of particular individuals who could exert influence on important congressmen or senators. Thus, excessive duties on such things as nippers, pliers, cheap cotton gloves, horn combs, and woven asbestos fabrics were included. Though such special favors were not uncommon in tariff history, it seemed particularly unfortunate that they should appear in a tariff supposedly enacted to fulfill a pledge for downward revision.5 Little wonder, then, that President Taft himself received the brunt of Progressive ridicule after he unwisely proclaimed to a crowd in Winona, Minnesota, that "on the whole . . . I think the Payne bill is the best bill that the Republican Party ever passed." 6 This controversial bill established the beginning of Reed Smoot's reputation, whether good or bad, as a master of tariff schedules and detail and also as one of the nation's great protectionists.

The Republican platform of 1908 expressed the doctrine of protection in these terms: "In all protective legislation, the true principle of protection is best maintained by the imposition of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries." 7 Such a statement appears, at least on the surface, to be moderate. As F. W. Taussig observes, however, anything in the world can be produced in almost any country if the producer is assured of the cost of production together with reasonable profits.

4 s

Taussig, Tariff History, p. 408.

Ibid., p. 403. " T h e entire speech may be found in Story of a Tariff (n.p., n.d.), 6-20. This book is an interesting compilation of speeches on the act of 1909, apparently compiled by tariff advocates but listing no editor.

7 See Taussig, Tariff History, p. 363, and ensuing discussion of this statement.

328

Utah Historical Quarterly In a familiar passage of the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith remarked that "by means of glasses, hotbeds, and hot walls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries." In the same vein, it may be said that very good pineapples can be grown in Maine, if only a duty be imposed sufficient to equalize cost of production between the growers in Maine and those in more favored climes. Tea, coffee, cocoa, raw silk, and hemp,—any quantity of things that are now imported can be grown in the United States provided only that a duty high enough be imposed. 8

Smoot and his colleagues had no intention of extending protection to such extremes, but they were clearly interested in protecting any American business that, in their judgment, could provide reasonable service to the American people if foreign competition could be reduced or eliminated. Higher cost to the consumer seemed not to matter to them.

Demonstrating his mastery of almost every item on the tariff schedules, Smoot said in 1909: At the time of the Dingley bill postal view cards were unknown in this country, but as all Senators know, that business has grown to mammoth proportions.

T h e German importers, under the 5-cent rate that we now have, virtually control this market. . . . The House advanced the rate from 5 to 7 cents a pound. T h e Senate committee have now advanced it to 15 cents a pound and 25 percent ad valorem.

I suppose there is no Senator who has not received by mail lately postal cards showing views of America; yes, views of public buildings in Washington, printed on postal cards made in Germany. In order to save this business the committee have decided that the only way of doing it is to put a rate of duty of 15 cents a pound and 25 percent ad valorem. I will admit that it looks to be a very large increase, and it is an increase of 325 percent over present law, but nothing short of that, in the opinion of the committee, would save the business to the American lithographer. 9

Smoot did not suggest the degree to which a 325 percent increase in duty would profoundly expand, not just protect, the American lithography business, nor did he seem to care what this might do to the German postcard industry. But it was not his responsibility to care; for, to protectionists, his impassioned plea was the only true interpretation of the gospel of protection.

What role, then, did the Utah senator play in the formulation of the five basic tariff laws enacted during this career? Fortunately, the 8 9

Ibid., p. 364.

Story of a Tariff, pp. 342-43.

The Great Protectionist

329

Reed Smoot diaries, only recently made available to scholars, help explain his work on tariffs." After Senator Smoot was reelected in 1908, Chairman Aldrich personally selected him as a member of the powerful finance committee. The move was advantageous to both. For Smoot, it was the assignment he cherished most, largely because this committee dealt with tariff matters. At the same time, Aldrich received "an absolutely loyal assistant whose labors in behalf of the common cause were indefatigable."11 It was Smoot who would do the tedious, grinding spadework, leaving higher strategy matters to the chairman. On the tariff of 1909, he was the prodigious workhorse who attended all committee meetings and Senate debates with tenacious regularity and also burned the midnight oil digging out facts, preparing schedules, meeting with lobbyists from a seemingly endless chain of interests, and preparing speeches and press releases for public consumption.

The Utah senator could not help but radiate his enthusiasm for the tariff as he approached his work with monumental self-confidence.

Among other things, he had every assurance that the best interest of his native state would be promoted through his influence. To C. E. Loose he wrote, on March 19, 1909: I assure you that I shall see that every Utah interest is protected in the tariff bill which is now under consideration. People do not understand how legislation is accomplished in the United States Senate. The work is done in committees and I notice that members of the Committee generally have their wishes gratified in matters pending before their various committees. The wool men, the mining men, the sugar people and in fact every other interest in Utah need not worry about the final outcome of these schedules in the bill.12

Smoot was given specific charge of wool, silk, and lead schedules and was made a member of the subcommittee on sugar. He held frequent meetings with corporate representatives, evidently giving most of them a fully sympathetic ear. On March 24, 1909, for example, he met until late at night with a prominent silk manufacturer, going over suggested duties. He was instructed by Aldrich to work toward a specific duty in place of the current ad valorem charged, and this was eventually accomplished. On the other hand, when he met with anxious wool growers 10 Milton R. Merrill, "Reed Smoot: Apostle in Politics" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950), p. 427, complained of the lack of material then available on Smoot.

" I b i d . , p. 361.

12

Quoted in ibid., p. 363.

330

Utah Historical

Quarterly

he told them frankly that the committee had no intention of raising duties above those of the Dingley Tariff, and his assessment of the situation held.

But the senator from Utah spent more time with the sugar schedule than with any other, with the result that sugar rates were left virtually unchanged. In light of the revisionist sentiment of the time and the fact that the sugar beet industry was already virtually supported by the tariff, this was a victory for protectionism. Smoot and his two colleagues on the sugar subcommittee did, however, concede to one wish of President Taft.

In a meeting on April 8, Taft told the senators that he wanted to let the first 300,000 tons of sugar from the Philippines come in free. Smoot responded that if this was the president's wish, he and the others would see to it. Smoot and Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge drafted the appropriate amendment, which became part of the final legislation.13 Smoot spent long hours examining every aspect of the sugar schedules, and on May 26 he vigorously defended the continuing high duty in the Senate.

Smoot also became involved with other industries. Along with Senator Lodge, he was appointed as a special agent to "fire up" the watch interests and to give special hearings to watch importers.11 It fell to Smoot to try to get the mining interests together, and on April 23 he held a long meeting in which the zinc miners and smelter owners could not agree. He finally told them that unless they could get together on their requests the Senate would act without their advice. He also met with representatives of such diverse interests as coal tar, glove leather, plate glass, and tobacco. He was, indeed, becoming the master of detail.

At the same time, Smoot successfully resisted the flood of overtures from lobbyists whose causes he felt extreme, even if they were from his native Utah. In May, for example, he received a visit from Joseph Nibley of Salt Lake City, who had a letter from his father Charles W. Nibley, the presiding bishop of the LDS church, as well as from the church president. Smoot took the visitor to dinner but recorded in his diary: "His visit does not blind me in the least." The mineral water interests, Smoot believed, were trying to influence him through Nibley, to whom they had offered $2,500 if he could get the senator to vote for higher duties. For three days the mineral water lobbyist badgered him but, recorded Smoot, after Nibley's last visit: "He certainly did not convince me."15 It was 13 Reed Smoot, Diaries of Reed Smoot, April 8, 1909, manuscript, Special Collections, Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

14 Ibid., April 5, 1909.

13 Ibid., May 12, 1909.

The Great Protectionist

331

probably a long succession of such persistent buttonholing that led him to write in his diary on June 18: "I can not walk down the street or step into the hotel but I am stopped by men wanting a change in rates and always higher ones."

Smoot's job included more than just working out details; Aldrich also depended on him for assistance in defending the bill in the Senate and to answer any question.10 He went about this task with a vengeance.

In early May, for example, Smoot noted in his diary the bitter attacks on the bill by Sen. Jonathan Dolliver but observed that even though the strain of overwork was beginning to tell, he could not let up, for other senators were looking to him to answer any attack. On June 1 he presented to the Senate an elaborate defense of the cotton schedule, which took him nearly three hours to deliver. His diary leaves the reader feeling that he may have been overly impressed with his own importance, but his perseverance matched his self-image perfectly.

It would be impossible, of course, to assess accurately Smoot's relative influence when compared with other protectionists, but it can be said that Aldrich was pleased, impressed, and eager to reward his junior colleague, even though it meant a conflict with Henry Cabot Lodge. After widely divergent bills passed the two houses of Congress, Smoot was anxious for a seat on the conference committee, but Senator Lodge, who was senior to him, insisted on the assignment. Aldrich wanted to appoint Smoot, but when Lodge was intransigent he resorted to the strategy of appointing Sen. Shelby Cullom, who was senior to Lodge, with the understanding that Cullom would then resign and ask Smoot to serve in his place.17 The conference committee was no picnic for Senator Smoot, especially after he began to feel the pressure from President Taft. Particularly galling to Smoot was Taft's insistence that hides and certain raw materials be placed on the free list. Smoot's diary reveals such tense scenes as the conferees meeting with the president in the White House but accomplishing little; Congressman Payne becoming huffy when Senate Republicans refused to admit certain raw' products, saying he would refuse to sign the report and that he had the president behind him; the president doggedly insisting on free hides and Smoot finally, on July 27, wearily writing in his journal: "The conferees have agreed to report free hides with reductions on shoes, leather, and leather products as demanded 16

Ibid., March 23, 1909.

"Ibid., July 8, 1909.

332

Utah Historical

Quarterly

by the President. We could not prevent it." But he had one consolation two days later, after the final conference report was agreed upon. "Utah is protected," he wrote, "in everything but hides and she has but few of them."

On August 5, 1909, the Payne-Aldrich Tariff became law, and Senator Smoot recorded in his diary that he was congratulated by the president, vice-president, and many senators and cabinet officers. At the same time, one can understand the disappointment suggested on April 13 when, after a particularly full day of congratulations and thanks on his committee work, he noted that not one person from Utah had come to see him. It is clear, however, that his labors in 1909 established his reputation as a hard-working, tough-minded expert on tariff schedules as well as an ardent protectionist. As he duly recorded in his diary on April 20: "It is generally conceded that I am the best informed person on the tariff bill in the Senate outside Aldrich. I have had a chance to make a reputation and I have improved the opportunity."

Senator Smoot had, indeed, established himself with the president and other Republican leaders. In 1911 he was often called in for counsel

by President Taft, particularly with regard to two measures. One was the plan for a reciprocal trade agreement with Canada, which the president pressured Smoot to support. Smoot complained that this could do nothing but hurt American farms; but in the end the Democrats and Progressive Republicans combined to pass the bill, much to Smoot's dismay. The other major area of discussion was a 1911 bill which would reduce the tariff on wool. When it looked as if the bill would pass, it was Smoot with whom the president counseled on his veto message and who provided him with considerable data as he was preparing it. Smoot worked day and night against the tariff revision, and after an August 15 speech, of which he was particularly proud, he wrote: "I was complimented for the speech the way I delivered it. I spoke off the head with all the earnestness I could command. The wool report was received and adopted by the Senate. The President had his veto message ready." Debates on wool continued for over a year, and Smoot tried vainly to write a Republican bill that would keep what he considered reasonable rates. Even in committee, however, he was unable to muster the necessary votes. The Democratic bill finally passed the Congress, but Smoot breathed a sigh of relief when Taft vetoed it on August 12, 1912. The wool tariff was saved a little longer, but insurgency was in the air and in the next session Smootian protectionism would be overwhelmed.

The Great Protectionist

333

By 1913 the Democrats held the presidency and a majority in both houses of Congress. With the tariff as a principal national issue, and one of the few issues on which there was a clear distinction between the parties, there seemed to be a public mandate for reform. In addition, the new Income Tax Amendment became law in 1913. For the first time there was a basis for separating considerations of tariff rates from the problem of federal finance. The time again seemed ripe for tariff revision.18 The result was the Underwood Tariff of 1913, which Smoot and others derisively referred to as "the Democratic Tariff."

The new tariff was by no means a free-trade document, but according to Oscar W. Underwood, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congress had adopted a "competitive theory." Said Underwood : No revenue can be produced at the customs house unless there is some competition between the products of foreign countries and domestic products; . . . if you put the wall so high that you close the door to importation no revenue can be raised, and . . . if you want to raise revenue at the customs house you must admit some importations before the tax will fall upon them and revenue be raised.10

In other words, the Democrats wanted to make the tariff low enough to ensure competition but not so low that domestic production would be seriously injured or destroyed. Achieving this kind of balance would be difficult if not impossible.

The new tariff reversed the protective policy that had been in effect for half a century. The duty on wool was removed entirely and that on woolen cloth substantially reduced. Important reductions were enacted for cotton goods, silks, pottery, china, and porcelain. The duty on sugar was also reduced, and after May 1, 1916, sugar was to be admitted free.1'" Senator Smoot was appalled, but it bore out a prediction he had made in a letter of April 18, 1913: "It begins to look as if President Wilson, the greatest autocrat of them all, will be powerful enough to compel the western Democrats to submit to free wool, free sugar in three years, and lead at 25 percent acl valorem." The western Democrats had earlier

1S See Taussig, Tariff History, p. 409: Page, Making of the Tariff, pp. 24-28; J. Weston Walch, Complete Handbook on Free Trade (Portland, Me.: J. Weston Walch. 1953), p. 12; Lewis E. Lloyd, The Case for Protection (New York: Deviti-Adair, 1955), p. 18.

19 211

As quoted in Ashley, Modern Tariff History, p. 69

The three-year transition period was to avoid too sharp a drop on the substantial federal revenue coming from sugar and to allow cane sugar producers in Louisiana as well as the growers of sugar beets in the West time to accommodate themselves to new conditions.

334

Utah Historical

Quarterly

declared that they intended to protect these commodities, but, according to Smoot, they had become "as mild as little lambs."21 The discouraged senator from Utah was able to do little more than try to find ways to amend the Democratic revisions and to listen with sympathy to the tales of woe coming from every corner of the protectionist camp. "Manufacturers from all over the country are here worried over what the Democrats are going to do by way of revision of the tariff," he lamented on April 4. "They all call on me and I give them very little encouragement." As a minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, he did what he could to soften the coming blow, although most of his efforts were in vain. Meetings were held with representatives of all protected interests, and Smoot continued in his usual thorough way to gather information on the effect of tariff rates in order to be prepared for whatever testimony he could give.22 He frequently offered amendments to the bill, most of which were rejected, and on August 19 he made a three-hour defense of sugar. "I put into the speech all the energy I was capable of doing," he wrote. "I was completely tired out at the close of the speech and even my shirt was wet with perspiration. Senator Smith of Michigan said it was the greatest speech he ever heard delivered in Congress." But the Democratic tariff was passed, and the disgusted Senator Smoot spent the next eight years attacking it.

The Underwood Tariff seemed like the golden opportunity for Americans to see who was wrong and who was right. Would the lower duties and the move away from protection actually destroy American industries and hurt American labor as the Republicans proclaimed, or, as the Democrats hoped, would it bring down the cost of living and provide healthy competition for American business? Unfortunately there was no opportunity for a real test. Within a few short months war engulfed Europe, imports which competed with American products were practically eliminated, and American goods formerly protected by the tariff wall were being exported to neutral countries. After the war several abnormal conditions further prevented the Underwood Tariff from having a fair trial, especially after the sweeping Republican victories at the polls. Americans seemed to be infused with a renewed spirit of self-sufficiency and with a determination not to be caught short in any item in case of another emergency. In addition, the war spawned a number of new industries that, with the renewal of foreign competition, 21

Reed Smoot to C. E. Loose, April 18, 1913, as quoted in Merrill, "Reed Smoot," p.

22

See Smoot Diaries, especially through May and June 1913.

371.

The Great Protectionist

335

seemed in danger of being eliminated. Finally, in 1920-21 a severe decline in farm prices led farmers and their representatives in Congress to the conclusion that a flood of foreign agricultural imports was the cause of their economic ills.23 The result was the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 that imposed high duties on agricultural products such as wheat, wool, potatoes, corn, meat, and sugar and laid the groundwork for the return to permanent protection in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922.

In the meantime, Smoot's political fortunes were again beginning to smile. He played a major role in securing the nomination of Sen. Warren G. Harding as the Republican candidate for president in 1920, and on June 14 he discussed campaign strategy with Harding. "Senator Harding told me," he confided in his diary, "that I was to be part of his administration. If I wanted to be Scty. of the Treasury, I had but to ask for it. He told me he was not making promises for appointments, but wanted me to know how he felt. I told him I would prefer to remain in the Senate." It was no light matter to turn down such a prestigious position, but it may well have been that Smoot saw the handwriting on the tariff wall: a Republican Congress had been elected in 1918; Harding would undoubtedly be elected in 1920; and the senator from Utah was moving close to the top in seniority on the Senate Finance Committee.

All these factors combined would give him more power than ever before to promote his greatest economic and political passion, the protective tariff. He had only one more serious, but temporary, rebuff to face.

During the lame duck session of Congress in the winter of 1920-21 the Republicans passed an emergency tariff bill, but when it went to conference after several Senate amendments, Smoot made every effort to keep it there until the end of that session of Congress. "I don't want Pres. Wilson to have a chance to veto it," he explained, "for I think the public will agree with him." 24 However, it was forced out of committee, Wilson did veto it, and Smoot was unhappy on both counts. Within two months a new emergency tariff had been passed and signed by the new president, Warren G. Harding. The future looked bright.

By 1921 Smoot's role in tariff legislation was not only that of a senior member of the finance committee but also that of close advisor to the president. His diary for the 1920s is filled with mention of repeated con' Taussig, Tariff History, pp. 448-49; Ashley, Modern Smoot Diaries, February 16, 1921.

Tariff History, pp. 263-64.

336

Utah Historical

Quarterly

ferences with Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover on tariff matters, and in every case he seemed to have their confidence. It was a new era of High Republicanism, and such philosophical differences as Smoot may have had with Taft were not apparent with the Republican presidents of the 1920s.

When it came time to work on the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, Reed Smoot was ready in every way. His work on schedules, his meetings with lobbyists, and his defending protection on the floor of the Senate and in conference committee seemed to be almost an expanded version of 1909, except that this time he devoted even more energy to sugar. "Senator Smoot venerates unspeakably the sugar beet," chided the New York Times,2" but few people could laugh at his thorough knowledge of the industry or his tireless efforts to protect it. Sugar was one of the least popular tariffs in the country.

Sugar interests were worried over two possibilities: Cuba would soon begin to dump its sugar onto the American market, or political strife in Cuba might cause America to fulfill a long-standing threat to annex it.

Either eventuality, Smoot believed, would be a disaster for American sugar. He even contacted Heber J. Grant, president of the LDS church, and Charles W. Nibley, presiding bishop, asking them to send experts to help in the campaign. (The church had extensive holdings in sugar.) He considered many plans, realizing that an extremely high tariff would not pass. One plan was to limit the amount of sugar Cuba could export to America; another was to assist Cuba in selling its product to Europe.

But at times he found little help for sugar, even among members of his own committee. March 22, 1922, was a particularly bitter day for him.

The House had placed a rate of $1.60 per hundred on Cuban sugar, and Smoot proposed that it be raised to $2.00. The vote against him, however, was five to three, after two senators who had promised him their vote suddenly, and without warning, switched. Hurt and angry, Smoot threatened the committee by declaring that he would have nothing more to do with the bill, he would become freelance, and if they lowered protection on sugar he would see to it that the same measure was applied to other items as well. "Things got very warm," he wrote unhappily in his diary, "and I gave them all to understand that I would not be so treated and the days work was brought to an abrupt conclusion." Later in the day Sen. Porter J. McCumber, committee chairman, and the two senators who so disappointed Smoot, all promised that they would supi3

New York Times, August 9, 1922, as quoted in Merrill, "Reed Smoot," p. 383.

TJjj

^3 life

Utah-Idaho Sugar Company refinery at Garland, Utah, is symbolic of one of the industries Smoot tried to protect with high tariffs. Utah State Historical Society collections, courtesy of David W. Evans and Associates.

port an amendment to raise the duty to $2.00 once the bill was on the Senate floor and suggested that this was their strategy all along. Smoot was serious about his threat to resign if the problem was not corrected, which led the senators to offer a reconsideration in committee. He told them he would decide later. "They wanted nothing said of my position for it would be fatal to the party if I resigned and fought the bill as I knew more about the bill than any member of the Senate. I was sick at heart." No more of the incident is recorded in the diary; but in the end the rate on Cuban sugar was set at $1.76, and no quotas were imposed.

Smoot did not get all he wanted, but he still had protection.20 The Fordney-McCumber Tariff included many provisions that were the direct result of farm bloc pressure and that Senator Smoot fullysupported. High duties were restored on cattle, wool, lemons, and practically all other important farm products. In addition, high duties were imposed on dyes, although a strong attempt to place an embargo on the importing of dyes was defeated by protectionists themselves, including Smoot, who did not want to grant a complete monopoly to the dye trust in America. The Republican's "true principle" of protectionism, however, was dramatically restored in 1923. °"°On the floor of the Senate, Smoot successfully got a $1.84 rate approved by a slim margin of two votes. It was reduced, however, in conference.

338

Utah Historical Quarterly

Another important part of the new law was the so-called flexible provisions that appeared for the first time and that allowed the president discretion in increasing or decreasing tariff rates. The new tariff was also significant because it was the first to benefit from the operation of the Tariff Commission established in 1916. The commission itself could never—under the restrictions placed upon it by Congress—replace the politicians in determining final results, and, therefore, tariffs still would not even approach the supposedly scientific determination that both parties seemed to be asking for. But at least the commission was able to provide the basis for schedules that were more professionally constructed and to improve the general administrative features of the customs system.27 Not long after the Fordney-McCumber Tariff was enacted, Reed Smoot became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As such he had more influence on tariff legislation than he had ever had before. His senatorial career would, then, culminate with the committee assignment for which he felt best prepared, and with the passage of a tariff that bore his name and that approximated his ideal more closely than any other.

The Smoot-Hawley Act was the last of the old-time protective tariffs as well as the last with which Smoot had anything to do. It was primarily an agricultural tariff and raised duties on such things as cattle, meats, dairy products, breadstuff's, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Of special importance to Smoot was the increase in duties on sugar and wool. In addition, various building materials were taken from the free list; and duties were raised on glass, pottery, clocks, and watches. Practically every schedule, in fact, was raised, and the result was the highest tariff in America's history.

Smoot's round of activities, through 1929 and well into 1930, in connection with his personal tariff was reminiscent of his earlier work: lobbyists, committee hearings, long hours of schedule-making, consultation with the president, speeches in the Senate, and rounds of congratulations. Compared to the energy he expended this time, however, the earlier years may well have seemed mere child's play. As described by Milton Merrill, H e entered the fray sadly worn. Mrs. Smoot, to whom he had been devoted, had died late in 1928. T h e r e were ominous cracks in his personal finances. H e advised Nibley in late J u n e that he could not sleep. H e had tried sleeping tablets, but they left him more exhausted than ever. H e was

27

Taussig, Tariff History, pp. 481-87.

The Great Protectionist

339

67 years old. Nevertheless he plunged ahead with outwardly inexhaustible energy. If the tariff bill was to be his monument, it would be handbuilt. . . . He . . . pushed along with the placid persistence of a glacier. 28

His battle was magnificent in its scope, but undoubtedly a drain on every fiber of his body. He tried to get a sliding scale for sugar and allow Cuba a 20 percent advantage over other sugar importers. In this he failed, but at least the final rate on Cuban sugar was increased to $2.00 per hundred. He fought unreasonable increases on chemical and metal schedules.29 In his quest for fairness, he even authorized a plan for obtaining the income tax returns of certain importers in order to determine the true extent of their profits.30 But he often recorded in his diary his sleepless nights, his splitting headaches, and the fact that the tariff was being ridiculed in the public press. When the special 1929 session ended without a tariff law being passed, he wrote that the experience had nearly killed him, since he had had to take the brunt of the fight.31 On June 13, 1930, however, the bill passed the Senate by a narrow margin of 44 to 42.

Smoot was assured that both the House and the president would concur, and telegrams of congratulations began pouring in. His simple comment, "I feel great relief since the action of the Senate," was probably the understatement of the decade.

But the Utah senator's cherished tariff could not have been enacted at a more inauspicious time. The economic depression precipitated by the great crash of 1929 was becoming steadily worse, economists were denouncing protection as a delusion, and the Democrats were soon to be swept into power in the campaign of 1932. The barrage of criticism became so severe that in 1934 Smoot's tariff was amended by an act that put into practice the principle of reciprocal trade agreements that Smoot had fought with a vengeance all his tariff career. A series of gradual reductions in duties replaced the system Smoot had worked so hard to build, as tariff history took new directions.32 One authority on tariff history has declared that Smoot's cherished bill was "probably one of the most disastrous tariffs in world history."'1 Since the United States had become one of the world's prime creditor nations, he explained, the tariff could hardly have been more badly 28

Merrill, "Reed Smoot," pp. 421, 424.

29

Smoot Diaries, July 29-August 1, 1929, and passim.

M

Smoot Diaries, September 20, 1929.

31

Smoot Diaries, November 22, 1929.

See David M. Chalmers's introduction to Taussig, Tariff History, p. xvff.

:12 33

Ibid., p. xv.

340

Utah Historical Quarterly

conceived or timed. It had the effect of worsening the depression throughout the world as well as helping to bring retaliatory barriers against American exports and a drop in this nation's share of world trade. Thus, a generation after the zenith of Smoot's career, economic historians still criticize his proudest accomplishment in much the same terms as critics of his own time.

Today little is left of the formidable tariff wall Smoot labored for nearly thirty years to construct. Nevertheless, he exerted such an important influence in his own time that it seems significant briefly to consider the general philosophy on which he based his tariff actions. It seems clear that his ideas were hardly original with him, for they reflected the general attitude of the American business community of which he was a part. But he became one of the most ardent spokesmen of the philosophy of that community.

Smoot was not unaware of the classical arguments for free trade nor of the fact that most economists of his day saw grave economic consequences in a rigidly protectionist system. He rejected such arguments not only because of his personal interest in Utah sugar and other businesses but also because he was absolutely convinced that American prosperity and self-sufficiency were directly related to the protective tariff. Often dubbed the "apostle of protection," he was as fully convinced of the validity of protectionism as he was of the theology of Mormonism.

In 1922 he predicted with assurance that the tariff would "bring prosperity to all the people of the United States from one end of the land to the other."34 In 1932 he told the Young Republicans, in a speech entitled "The Tariff as a Shock-Absorber against Depression," that T h e American economic system has grown up on tariff protection. With brief and disastrous exceptions high tariffs have formed the basis of our industrial life ever since the Civil War. Protection against undue foreign competition has become a factor in our industrial equilibrium just as are the sources of power and the supplies of raw materials. Any movement to sweep away the foundation of our national economic policy must be considered an unfriendly act in times of prosperity.'5"'

Evidence for these assertions came in an indignant response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's attack upon the tariff in the 1932 campaign. "It is charitable to assume that the Democratic presidential candidate is ignorant of the facts concerning our tariff and international trade," 34

Merrill, "Reed Smoot," pp. 375, 383.

'Reed Smoot, " T h e Tariff as a Shock-Absorber against Depression," typescript, Smoot Papers, Lee Library.

The Great Protectionist

341

Smoot said. "Any other assumption would indict him for gross misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty." To Roosevelt's claim that the tariff increased the cost of products purchased by farmers, Smoot replied that the price of finished products had fallen 20 percent since the 1930 tariff law. When Roosevelt claimed that four American factories were moving to Canada each week and that this was a result of Smoot's tariff, the Utahn replied that no American factory had moved to Canada and only one to any other country. Some branch plants, to be sure, had been set up in other countries, but most of these were before the 1930 law. The argument that the tariff had largely extinguished the American export market was met by pointing out that the decline in industrial production and the decline in foreign trade were almost exactly of the same proportion and that both were the result of other factors related to the depression.36 On another occasion he declared that "It is time that the American people realized that the tariff defends their own workmen and their OWTL jobs and that attacks on it by Democratic nominees are dangerous blows."37 To his fellow Utahns he proclaimed: We must remember that 9 0 % of our farm products are used in domestic consumption, and it is that 9 0 % that we must protect. In order to do so a Republican Administration must be returned to Washington.

Economically the United States has advanced far ahead of the rest of the world behind a protective tariff barrier. T h e major issue of this campaign is "Shall the barrier be removed so that the American people will have to slide back down to the economic level of the rest of the world." 38

Smoot believed America was prosperous under the tariff because it encouraged self-sufficiency. A high tariff on hides, for example, would help protect the independent tanner from monopolies, for if prices were too low only a monopoly could compete with foreign imports. The tariff would also help the farmer who could more easily sell his products directly to the independent tanner. 39 The highly developed American market was "almost an economic unit in itself" in which all the parts were bound together by the policy of protection. Some 96 percent of its industrial production, Smoot proclaimed in 1932, was absorbed within its own borders. He waxed eloquent on the glories of self-sufficiency: ",c "Statement of the Honorable Reed Smoot, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance," typescript, Smoot Papers.

37 "The Need for Protection," typescript, Smoot Papers.

38

Typescript dated October 6, 1932, Smoot Papers.

U.S., Congress, Senate, Congressional Record. 71st Cong., 2d sess., 1930. pp. 22,12728, June 16, 1930, p. 10,855.

311

342

Utah Historical Quarterly With such an opulent market of our own and such a diversified allotment of resources as we find within our confines, the United States is economically the most self-contained nation on earth. Yet the exports which spill over the edges of our vast home market exceed those of any other country. 40

Smoot could see no righteous motive on the part of those who would destroy the wall protecting this highly interdependent economic system: . . . the vested interests of the Democratic party would try to obtain new foreign markets for the gigantic industries of this country by opening new markets in the United States for huge foreign cartels. What would be the result? O u r smaller industries, in which the rank and file of the people are employed, would be crushed so that the great industries might fatten on export trade. I do not hesitate to denounce this conspiracy as the most unAmerican scheme that has ever been concocted to swindle our small industries and business enterprises of their right to live. It is an insult to the American people who, for a century and a half, have labored diligently to encourage industry and to enhance the self-sufficiency of this great Nation. 4 1

Such an economic outlook hardly left room in Smoot's imagination for the possibility that the tariff could be cause either of a depression or a decline in trade, yet one of the most damaging charges against his 1930 bill was that it produced a chain reaction of retaliatory tariffs that served further to stifle international trade and intensify the depression. Smoot could not understand that point of view. Admitting that there wras a decrease in customs after the passage of his tariff law, he nevertheless believed that was accounted for by the flood of imports that hit the market just prior to the bill and by the general worldwide slump in business. Neither was the fault of tariff policy, he argued, but the situation certainly afforded opponents of protection the opportunity to "mislead" the American public.42 In November Smoot proclaimed that the real question was whether the tariff was high enough.43 A year later he argued that America, despite the tariff, was importing a larger percent of its commodities than before the depression and that his tariff allowed only a "small additional margin of protection to industry" while providing more realistic protection to agriculture. Besides, he reasoned, it was 40 Reed Smoot, "Our Tariff and the Depression," Current History 35 (1931-32) : 179.

A typewritten version of this article is in the Smoot Papers. It was originally prepared for publication in the Saturday Evening Post by Merlo J. Pusey who was at the time a member of the staff of the Senate Finance Committee and who assisted in the preparation of many of Smoot's public statements.

41

"Radio Address on the Tariff," 1932, typescript, Smoot Papers.

12

Press release, December 8, 1930, Smoot Papers.

43

Press release, November 15, 1930, Smoot Papers. It is interesting to note that in 1914 he argued that the low Democratic tariff may actually have caused a decline in trade. See Effect of the Democratic Tariff (Washington, D . C : Government Printing Office, 1914).

The Great Protectionist

343

absurd to think that other nations would reduce their tariffs if the United States took the lead in that dangerous course: "Should the United States embark upon a lower tariff policy, other countries would graciously dump their surplus upon our domestic market while retaining their own markets for their own producers." 41 Smoot had few, if any, convincing arguments to show that his tariff policy did anything to promote American sales abroad, and it is difficult to understand why he did not recognize the validity of the argument that a high tariff would bring retaliatory tariffs from other countries.

His stand became especially vulnerable after 1934 when a book entitled Tariff Retaliation appeared. Under a grant from the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph M. Jones, Jr., had spent two years in Europe studying the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Act. He found "wide, profound repercussions which impose urgent reflections upon our entire commercial policy." In particular, he found that European nations had, indeed, retaliated. There was little in the book to give comfort to Smoot. 4 ' Senator Smoot also opposed reciprocal trade agreements, which, he firmly believed, could only do damage to American industry and agriculture. No matter how noble their intent, they could only open the door to the kind of reductions that would eventually allow7 inexpensively produced foreign goods to overwhelm American producers. Reciprocity, he believed, would work only to favor one class of American producers over another. To Smoot this was blatantly unfair.10 It was for the benefit of agriculture that Smoot saved his most prodigious efforts, and it was to farmers that he made his most urgent appeals for support during the campaign of 1932. He told them that their best market was not abroad, but at home, and that unless the American people had jobs the farmers would have no place to sell their produce. 47 It was sugar, of course, in which he took the greatest interest, and Milton Merrill suggests a number of reasons: his protectionist philosophy in general; his belief that, even though uneconomic to produce, sugar could become profitable with merely the aid of a moderate tariff; and the fact that Utah was a sugar-producing state and the tithes of the Saints had been faithfully invested in sugar factories.48 But Smoot also pointed 44 "The Tariff as a Shock-Absorber." See also press release, September 5, 1931, and "Our Tariff and the Depression."

45 Joseph M. Jones, Jr., Tariff Retaliation (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934).

40 See Congressional Digest 11 (March 1932), pp. 75-76; Merrill, "Reed Smoot," p.

432#.

47 See speech prepared for rally at Beaver, Utah, 1932, typescript, Smoot Papers.

48 Merrill, "Reed Smoot," pp. 384-85.

344

Utah Historical

Quarterly

out that many midwestern states were equally dependent upon the sugar beet, and he wanted it clearly understood that his interest was greater than simply protecting Utah. He was consistent, of course, for the "true principle" of protection called for protecting such industries if they could be made reasonably profitable.49 Reflecting his whole philosophy, with perhaps a touch of hyperbole, he cried out in the Senate in 1913: I for one will never ask the farmers and wage earners of this country, whether they be descended from those who first landed on our shores or whether they be among those who have most recently sought the haven of America, that they shall place themselves upon the level of the half-naked and half-barbarous workers in the cane fields of foreign lands, wearing but a single garment, living in miserable huts, without fire and without light, subsisting upon the uncooked food that kindly nature provides about them. I will not ask them to descend to the level of the blacks of Cuba or the brown men of Java, who toil in the cane fields for 8 cents a day, or the yellow men of Formosa, who labor under conditions forced upon them by their cruel masters of Nippon. . . . Nor will the American people ask or permit any such thing. Yet only by such means, if their application were conceivable, would it be possible to compete with that very labor in this industry. 5 "

On balance, it is important to observe that Reed Smoot was not an extremist. He did not demand exclusionary rates on sugar and was even known to lower rates he thought excessive. He did not want to cut off Cuba entirely from American trade. He resisted, moreover, efforts to promote a dye embargo, for he knew the unfortunate effects that might result from a monopoly by American companies. "The purpose of our customs duties," he believed, "is to regulate and not dam up the stream of commercial intercourse." 51 But many economists, both then and now, would disagree with Smoot's way of regulating the stream of commercial intercourse, and Smoot himself did not fully answer some important objections to his philosophy. At the heart of many of his protariff arguments was the idea that low wages abroad would mean low prices on foreign goods, while high wages in America would mean high prices on domestic goods, all of which would result in a lower standard of living for America's farm and factory workers if the low-cost imports were allowed.52 He failed to 4<J See typescript of address prepared in 1930 which summarized Smoot's recent accomplishments, Smoot Papers.

M ~ Congressional Record, 63d Cong., 1st sess., 1913, p. 3,505.

31 "Measuring the Effect of the Tariff on International Trade," p. 1, typescript, Smoot Papers. This sentence was not in the printed version in Current History.

52 See "Our Tariff and the Depression," manuscript of speech dated October 6, 1932, Smoot Papers.

The Great Protectionist

345

respond satisfactorily to the argument that even though American wages were high, so also was American productivity and quality, and that these things were usually accompanied by low unit costs and thus low product prices to the consumer. Nor did he seem to recognize that imports often provided the monev with which foreign countries purchased American exports and that cutting off these funds through curtailing imports could actually reduce employment as well as real wages in America.

Furthermore, many economists agree that in the long run free trade would be the most efficient system for the world, for it would allow each country to produce the goods for which it is most suited; and every nation would then benefit from the low costs of such specialization.53 To such an argument Smoot would simply reply that self-interest would prevent the countries of the world from voluntarily adopting a free-trade system and that self-interest demanded a high tariff wall around America.

These, then, were some of the elements of Reed Smoot's protectionist philosophy. Understanding them helps one understand what made men like him, who influenced the course of history, do the things they did. If they seemed myopic it was only because they were so fully devoted to the grandeur of the protectionist cause. Once they accepted protectionism as a "true principle" it took on the certainty and aura of a religious crusade, and Smoot was well-fitted to lead out in such a cause. Even if one disagrees with Smoot's strict protectionist doctrine, one can understand and admire the tenacity with which he pursued his goal. He had one great characteristic that some will admire and others scoff at, but at least it provided the basis for whatever he accomplished: his overwhelming confidence in his own wisdom and ability. He knew his own strengths and acted on them. As he boldly wrote in his diary in 1909, "I am protectionist and I shall legislate for America.""

33 For a good summary statement of the logic of free trade, as well as the case for and against protection, see Campbell R. McConnell, Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), pp. 709-13. See also Taussig, Tariff History, pp. 365//.

M Smoot Diaries, July 21, 1909.

The Way We Were: A Photographic Essay

BY J A N E T G. BUTLER

Left: Utah women in the late 1800s enjoyed a prominent position in medicine. The directors of Deseret Hospital are: front: Jane Richards, Emmeline Wells; middle: Phoebe Woodruff, Isabelle Home, Eliza Snow, Zina Young, Marinda Hyde; back: Dr. Ellis Shipp, Bathsheba Smith, Elizabeth Howard, Dr. Romania Pratt.

Right: Utah farmlands show an atypical pattern: homes in town and lands beyond residential limits.

Bottom: Utah's Old Folk's Day, first organized

by Charles R. Savage, featured an excursion to Lagoon in 1898.

Ji.

â&#x20AC;˘ r-J

V

T o p : From the enforcement of the Edmunds Act of 1882 to the Manifesto of 1890, whereby Mormons officially abandoned the practice of plural marriage, about 800 men were convicted of polygamy. The sentence of Charles J. Arthur (third from left) of six months in jail and a $300 fine was representative. Left: Park City butchers at the turn of the century often owned herds of cattle, did their own slaughtering and processing. Butchers: Jim Rasband, Walter Bircumshaw, Joe Brandel.

Right: Afton Love, daughter of the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company president, owned and ran one of Sugarhouse's first and finest gift shops.

Left: Competition was keen before the electric street railway companies merged in 1901. Employees worked a ten to twelve hour day, seven days a week, for twenty cents an hour. R i g h t : Miners changed from street clothes in a "dry" where clothes were stored and showers available. Lard buckets carried meals packed in layers, often with soup on bottom to keep food warm for the day.

Bottom: Bingham's mining society was rough and colorful. Its waves of immigrants helped promote Utah's distinctive multiethnic heritage. *"Mh

l i f e jjÂŁ -)

A

L:

Top: Practicality determined the site of early cemeteries like this one in St. Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;remote but not too far from town for horse and buggy travel. Hearse owner: George Woodard; sexton: Aaron Nelson; driver: Alf Larson.

Center: Amid loud protest of illegal voting practices, in February 1889 the Liberal ticket won a landslide victory in Ogden's city election. The Mormon People's party had ruled for thirty-seven years; this election marked the beginning of a Gentile administration. Seated: C. R. Hank, W. Chapman, W. H. Turner; rear: F. B. Hurlbut, N. Anderson, H. V. Bias del, H. L. Griffin, C. J. Corey, G. B. Douglass. Bottom: Camp Douglas, later renamed Fort Douglas, was founded in 1862 by the California-Nevada Volunteers to protect mail routes from the Indians. Shown here are officers of the camp in dress uniform.

* i-

Top: Camping in Utah's forests. Left: The Wasatch Mountain Club was formed in 1920 for men with shared interests in outdoor sports. The club, which finally accepted women in 1924} introduced their wearing of pants and bloomers. Equipment was primitive by today's standards: Grand Teton mountaineering was accomplished in hobnail boots without ropes. Right: Ute Indian photographed by J. K. Hillers on the Powell Expedition, 1873 or 1874. According to Hillers's diary, "Their Breeches are of Buckskin and are sewn on their legs skin tight, with sinnew or 'Tammu. . . . The women . . . wear Buckskin dresses, fixed with beads. A dress of this kind is valued at about 50 dollars."

Left: Emma Lucy Gates Bowen, a granddaughter of Brigham Young and Utah's most famous operatic singer, toured the U.S. and Europe and recorded for what is now Columbia Records. R i g h t : Orchestra at the first reunion of the Utah Indian War Veterans at Ephraim, Sanpete County, 1906. Bottom: Saltair after the 1926 restoration. This picture, an advertising gimmick, combined two photos. Wind and weather damage, sewage disposal, and fresh water became overwhelming problems, and Saltair closed in 1958.

^

Teapot Dome Revisited: Reed Smoot and Conservation in the 1920s

BY T H O M A S G. ALEXANDER

A

V O T E

FOR

DAVIS BRYAN 1/ A V O T E

A6AIN/T iPEUAL PRIVILEGE-REMEMBER

L.

TEA-POT DOME

Unusual campaign placard for the 1924 election played up the Teapot Dome affair. Nevertheless, Calvin Coolidge defeated Democratic challenger John W. Davis. Utah State Historical Society collections.

V v ITH T H E CREATION OF THE National Park Service in 1916, and the passage of the Smoot General Leasing Act and the Federal Power Commission Act in 1920, the general body of progressive conservation and land legislation was completed. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was basically the application to the remainder of the public domain of the principles which had already been applied to forest reserves, and the Boulder Canyon Act simply enlarged work already being done under Thomas G. Alexander is professor of history and associate director of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University. The author expresses appreciation to the late Ariel F. Cardon for permission to consult a manuscript on Senator Smoot's role in conservation and to the Smoot family lor permission to use the diaries.

Teapot Dome Revisited

353

the Newlands Act. As has been indicated elsewhere, Reed Smoot had played an important part in the development of the legislation.1 A senatorial supporter of Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt, Smoot had been rewarded with appointment as chairman of the forestry section of the National Conservation Congress. He had played an important part in the passage of the National Parks Service Act and had been the chief architect of the General Leasing Act. When the Harding administration took office in 1921, Reed Smoot as chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys could look back on an era of considerable progress in conservation development.

In the public mind, however, the events of the 1920s tended to overshadow the solid accomplishments of the previous years. Smoot and his colleague Irvine L. Lenroot of Wisconsin suffered considerable vilification during the Teapot Dome investigation. The available evidence leads to the conclusion that far from abandoning conservation, Smoot's actions there and during the remainder of the decade were quite consistent with his previous activity.

The principal issue of the early 1920sâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;at least in the national press â&#x20AC;&#x201D;was the disposition of the naval oil reserves created during the Taft and Wilson administrations. As early as May 1921 Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby offered to turn over management of the reserves to the Department of the Interior because he believed that only by drilling and pumping could the federal government stop the apparent loss of oil to private companies. Denby hoped the Department of the Interior could lease drilling rights in the reserves and transport the oil for federal storage to places such as Pearl Harbor, where it could be saved for future need rather than being drained away. The reserve at Buena Vista Hills, California (Reserve Number 2) had been practically ruined, and reports indicated that drainage had begun to be a problem at both Elk Hills, California (Reserve Number 1) and Teapot Dome, Wyoming (Reserve Number 3). President Warren G. Harding approved Denby"s recommendation and authorized the transfer to the Interior Department, whereupon Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall negotiated leases that he let in early April 1922 to Edward L. Doheny of the Pan American Oil Company for drilling in California and Harry F. Sinclair of the Mammoth Oil Company for drilling at Teapot Dome.2 1 See Thomas G. Alexander, "Senator Reed Smoot and Western Land Policy, 1905-1920," Arizona and the West 13 (1971) : 245-64.

2 J. Leonard Bates, The Origins of Teapot Dome: Progressives, Parties, and Petroleum, 1909-1921 (Urbana, 111., 1963), pp. 229-32, 237-39; Burl Noggle, Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the 1920's ([Baton Rouge, La.], 1962), pp. 3 5 - 3 6 : U.S., Congress, Senate, Committe

354

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Negotiated in secret, the leases included competitive bidding only in the case of the California operations; and they became public knowledge only after the Wall Street Journal reported their existence on April 14.

Interior officials had told Sen. John B. Kendrick of Wyoming on April 10 that no contracts had been made. On April 15 Kendrick called for a report; on April 18 Assistant Secretary Edward C. Finney revealed the existence of the leases; and on April 21 Sen. Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin introduced a resolution asking Fall to explain the leases to Congress. After some consideration, the Senate adopted the La Follette resolution by a unanimous vote. 3 T h e introduction of the resolution appears to have been the first that Smoot knew of the leases. He filled his diary during the Sixty-seventh Congress up to that point with evidence of work on the Emergency Tariff bill and on the Fordney-McCumber bill, and he spent considerable time with lobbyists who were trying to change tariff rates; but he said nothing of the leases on naval oil reserves.4 O n June 8, 1922, Harding sent Fall's report to Congress together with nearly six thousand pages of supporting documents. Smoot had the report printed in the Congressional Record. The Utah senator then talked with Fall on June 9. Fall thought that if the committee examined the report and documents it would not need to hold hearings. The committee majority seems to have agreed at first. Fall made it clear in his report that the leases had been made because of the oil drainage problem and the desire to have the government's oil more readily accessible.5 In opposition to the committee majority, however, a number of people wanted hearings opened. Harry Slattery, one of Gifford Pinchot's close associates, and La Follette pressed for an investigation to begin early in the fall of 1922; but Thomas Walsh, senator from Montana, insisted upon carefully going over the evidence before acting. Kendrick increased pressure for action in August. And in November, Walsh introduced a resolution that called for an inquiry into the leases on the ground that certain corporations might have leased more than the land area on Public Lands and Surveys, Leases upon Naval Oil Reserves: Heatings before the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, United States Senate Pursuant to S. Res. 282, S. Res. 294, and S. Res. 434, Sixty-seventh Congress, Senate Resolutions Providing for an Investigation of the Subject of Leases upon Naval Oil Reserves and S. Res. 147, Sixty-eighth Congress Providing for an Investigation of the Subject of Leases upon Naval Oil Reserves, 3 vols. (Washington.

D . C , 1923-24), 1:186 (hereafter cited as Naval Lease Hearings).

3 Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 37â&#x20AC;&#x201D;38 : Reed Smoot, Diaries of Reed Smoot, April 28, 1922, manuscript, Special Collections, Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, U t a h : U . S .

Congress, Senate, Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1922, pp. 5792, 6042, 6097.

4 Smoot Diaries, passim.

3 Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1922, pp. 8471-74; Smoot Diaries, June 9, 1922.

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

355

allowed in the Smoot General Leasing Act.'! After the passage of the resolution, Smoot's diaries show no concern with the leases again until January 1923.

T h e first order of business was securing expert testimony to confirm or deny Fall's claim. Smoot, as chairman of the committee, assisted Lenroot and Walsh in choosing geologists to investigate the condition of the oil reserves. H e also introduced a resolution early in February to keep the investigation open. Before the committee could arrive at any valid conclusions the members would have to hear testimony. T h e sessions were scheduled for October 15, 1923. 7 At first the committee seemed interested principally in determining the validity of Fall's allegation that the leases were necessary to protect the oil. Then, a number of events and revelations changed the complexion of the investigation. Fall resigned after a controversy over Forest Service policy and Alaskan development; and during the congressional recess, while Smoot was in Europe, Harding died. Thereafter, charges and suspicions of fraud and corruption in the administration changed the investigation from an administrative hearing to a political forum.

Chairman Cordell Hull of the Democratic National Committee had begun to sense the political implications of the hearings. By October 15 Smoot had become convinced that the "Democrats are going to endeavor to make political capital out of" the hearings. H e wrongfully thought, however, that "little will come out of it." 8 Despite the developing political climate, the hearings got off to a slow start. O n October 15, 1923, when they were to have begun, only Smoot and two other members were present. W h e n they actually got underway on October 22 only five of the eleven committee members were present: Smoot, Lenroot, Walsh, Andrieus A. Jones of New Mexico, and Edwin F. Ladd of South Dakotaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;two Democrats and three Republicans. 9 T h e two committee-appointed geologists testified that the Teapot Dome contained less than 70 percent of the oil it was originally thought to contain. Smoot concluded that this justified Fall's leasing the reserves.

But Walsh, who emerged as Fall's principal antagonist, charged that there h a d simply been a miscalculation of the original supply. T h a t 0 Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 4 8 - 4 9 ; Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 3d sess., 1922, pp. 2 7 - 2 8 . ' Smoot Diaries, January 24, February 1, 23, 1923; Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 4th sess., 1923, p. 3048.

8 Smoot Diaries, October 15, 1923; Noggle, Teapct Dome, p. 68.

9 Smoot Diaries, October 15, 22, 1923 ; Naval Lease Hearings, 1:1.

356

Utah Historical

Quarterly

allegation was, at that point, impossible to confirm or refute. O n October 29 Walsh called his own geologist to contradict the testimony of the committee appointees, despite the fact that he, Smoot, and Lenroot had agreed on the committee consultants. During the early part of November some time was spent studying the geological reports. 10 Smoot concluded that Walsh was fishing around to discover something political to use against the administration. At this stage of the investigation Walsh moved ahead, like the superb lawyer he was, from the substantive question of the quantity of and clanger to oil reserves to the legal question of whether the Harding administration had overstepped its authority in leasing drilling rights and storing oil. T h e hearing reports and Smoot's diary show- that Walsh believed not only that Harding had made an error of judgment in the drilling and storage but that his actions h a d been illegal as well. Smoot disagreed. He met with attorneys for Sinclair and Doheny in Washington, told them that Walsh would try to have the leases set aside, and asked them to furnish him with all possible information justifying the administration policy.11 O n October 23 Fall began testifying. T h e proceedings continued as Denby, Sinclair, and a number of government employees and officials presented testimony. A bombshell dropped on the committee as questions began to arise concerning purchases of land and livestock for Fall's ranch in New Mexico. By November 16 Walsh was convinced that Fall had bought the items with money paid by Sinclair. Fall telephoned Smoot on November 15 to explain the ranch purchases. Though Smoot did not report what Fall told him, it is probable, in the light of subsequent events, that Fall lied to the senator. After talking with Fall, Smoot thought Walsh simply wanted to discredit the Republican party. O n December 19 the manager of Sinclair's farm testified that the oil magnate had sold livestock to Fall, and this seemed to corroborate Smoot's beliefs.12 T o clear the air, Smoot visited Sinclair at the W a r d m a n Park Hotel on the evening of December 27 after Walsh had continued probing the oilman's business affairs. They discussed how far WTalsh should be allowed to go and worked out an arrangement to allow Walsh to continue with the previous line of questioning while protecting Sinclair's rights to privacy. Then on December 31 Smoot, Lenroot, Ralph H. Cameron of '"Naval Lease Hearings, 1:172, 4 7 1 - 8 4 ; Smoot Diaries, October 22, 29, 1923. " S m o o t Diaries, October 25, 27, November 14, 1923; Naval Lease Hearings, 1:182, 201, and passim.

12 Noggle argued that Walsh did not conclude that Fall had received money from Sinclair until December, but Smoot's record of conversations with Walsh contradicts the belief. Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 6 8 - 6 9 ; Smoot Diaries, November 15, 16, December 19, 1923.

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

357

Arizona, and Holm O. Bursum of New Mexico met and agreed to "allow him [Walsh] to go a long way with Sinclair as we do not want the country to get the idea that wre want to cover up anything in which Mr. Sinclair is connected in the oil lease." H e then met with Sinclair and his lawyers to tell them of the decision. 13 O n December 27, the day of his meeting with Sinclair, Smoot received what he considered "a splendid letter" from Fall who explained that he h a d borrowed the money to fix up his ranch from Edward B. McLean, publisher of the Washington Post, and denied that he had approached Doheny or Sinclair for the money. H a d Smoot known the truth at that time, and had he urged Fall to lie, as Fall later claimed, it seems improbable that the senator would have wanted to keep the Sinclair matter before the committee as he decided to do. McLean later testified that he had indeed given the money to Fall, but that the ex-secretary had returned the checks uncashed. 14 A week later, on January 3, 1924, Smoot relinquished the chairmanship of the committee to Lenroot as he became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and could not hold both positions. Then, on J a n u a r y 2 1 a break came in the investigation. Attorney General Harry Daugherty told Smoot about a meeting between Senator Lenroot and President Coolidge on the Teapot Dome matter. Fall was not going to be allowed to leave the United States because Archie Roosevelt, son of the late president, would testify that Sinclair's private secretary told him of a $69,000 check (later it was said to be $68,000) Sinclair had given to Fall.

Daugherty made it clear that he was not going to shield Fall or any guilty person. Smoot, Lenroot, and Walsh held a conference to discuss the development. T h e three men talked over the administration position.

Smoot had asked Daugherty to be present, but he was unable to do so.

In the afternoon Walsh reported McLean's testimony on Fall's uncashed checks, then called Roosevelt who told his story. Sinclair's secretary followed to deny Roosevelt's report. 15 T h e secretary's testimony convinced Smoot that Roosevelt had been mistaken. " I do not believe," he confided to his diary, "Archie Roosevelt was told what he claims but was mistaken and misunderstood the secretary. No one can read the tesimony and believe otherwise in my opinion."

13

Smoot Diaries, December 27, 31, 1923.

Ibid., December 27, 1923; Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 70, 74. Smoot's diary makes no mention of the celebrated Wardman Park conference with Fall, though the letter of December 27 may have come as a result of it.

14

15

Smoot Diaries, January 21, 1924.

358

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Fall reinforced this belief in a telephone call from Florida. I n addition, he told Smoot that his attorney and Edward Doheny would testify and blow u p Walsh's case. Smoot urged Fall to return to Washington to testify.

Fall said he would if he thought it best after the lawyer and the oilman h a d spoken. Smoot apparently still believed Fall and was convinced that the testimony to that point had done irreparable h a r m to the former secretary of the interior. H e thought that Fall would "never live long enough to wipe away the blot."

O n January 23 Coolidge ordered Attorney General Daugherty to have a representative attend the hearings and take whatever steps were necessary to protect the interests of the government. 1 '' O n that same evening, J. W. Zeveley, Sinclair's attorney, called on Smoot to explain the $68,000 in checks of which Archie Roosevelt had spoken. T h e lawyer explained that Sinclair's secretary's explanation had been untrue because the checks had been paid to the manager of Sinclair's farm and not to the manager of Fall's. Smoot then resolved to bring both Roosevelt and Zeveley back to testify in order to clear the air.

T h e next day, January 24, Edward Doheny created a sensation by testifying that he had loaned $100,000 to Fall. Doheny offered to cancel the lease if that were necessary in view of the circumstances. Though Smoot believed Doheny had "handled himself very well . . . on the question of the lease it would be . . . referred to the courts for decision." 17 T h e following day, Zeveley testified that he had loaned Fall $25,000 for Sinclair in June 1923. This came as a surprise to Smoot, even though the loan had been made fourteen months after the lease had been negotiated and after Fall had already resigned from office. O n the same day, Coolidge told Smoot he had almost concluded to have the government bring proceedings against the two oilmen to declare their leases void. 18 O n January 26 Smoot and Lenroot met to discuss the leases with Doheny's attorney. Smoot suggested some modifications in the leases and made arrangements for the attorney to talk with Walsh. At the hearings that day the attorney presented the proposition. T h e n the committee met in executive session and agreed upon a resolution Wralsh was to offer on January 28 authorizing Coolidge to bring an immediate suit to cancel the leases. Coolidge prepared a statement to be released on Sunday, January 27, calling for bipartisan action to annul the leases. O n January 29 the ,e

Ibid., January 22, 1924; Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 8 0 - 8 1 .

Smoot Diaries, January 23, 24, 1924.

48 Ibid., January 25, 1924; on the question of the date of the loan, see, however, Noggle, Teapot Dome, p. 86.

17

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

359

full Senate debated the committee resolution for six hours. T h e principal difference of opinion came over statements by Walsh who declared that the leases were illegal and by Lenroot who simply doubted their legality.

O n January 31 the resolution was unanimously adopted. 19 Coolidge proceeded to annul the leases by appointing Owen J. Roberts, a Republican, and Atlee Pomerene, former Democratic senator from Ohio, to represent the government.

While the Senate debated the resolution, the committee prepared again to hear Albert Fall. O n the day of the Senate debate, Fall's attorney said that the former secretary could not appear to testify but suggested that the committee question him at his bedside. Walsh objected and requested Fall's physicians to testify on the former secretary's condition in executive session. When the committee heard the medical testimony, Walsh called Fall a liar. T h e committee decided that Smoot and W7alsh would select three doctors to examine and report on Fall's health. Two days later Fall appeared and read a statement in which he declined to answer questions on the grounds of possible self-incrimination. T h e committee went into executive session and agreed to adopt another resolution renewing its authorization for the investigation. Fall had questioned the one under which they were operating because it had been passed at the previous Congress. 20 O n the same day, Doheny appeared and opened new wounds by revealing some financial dealings with a group of Democrats. H e testified he had paid some $250,000 to the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson, former Secretary of the Treasury William G. McAdoo, $50,000 to former Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane, $2,000 to former Attorney General Thomas Gregory, and $5,000 to Wilson's former public information chief George Creel. 21 In December 1922, before the hearings had begun, Smoot himself had developed a rather unfortunate business connection with Doheny, the revelation of which might have damaged the senator's political career just as it did McAdoo's. Smoot's son Harold R. Smoot had lost a sizeable sum by selling short stock in one of Doheny's companies. Doheny controlled all outstanding shares and the senator had to negotiate a loan, which he personally guaranteed, with the oilman to buy stock for his son. Both the senator and his son believed that the younger Smoot had been tricked into selling the stock short. Nevertheless, Harold Smoot con19

Noggle, Teapot Dome, p. 9 8 ; Smoot Diaries, January 26, 1924.

Smoot Diaries, January 29, 30, February 1, 1924.

21 Ibid., February 1, 1924; Noggle, Teapot Dome, p. 108.

20

360

Utah Historical

Quarterly

tinued his business connection with Doheny; and as late as November 30, 1923, during the hearings, Smoot interceded for his son with the oilman.22 After January 1924 charges were made that throughout the investigation, the relationship between Walsh and Smoot had been strained and that Smoot and Lenroot had tried to whitewash Fall. The latter allegation is untrue. With regard to the former, Smoot believed Walsh was using the investigation for political purposes, and that created ill feelings between the two. After the hearings turned up financial links between Fall, Doheny, and Sinclair, Smoot cooperated fully and even went out of his way to see that the investigation was continued. Actually, at the time Coolidge announced the intention of the government to bring suits to annul the leases, and for a short time thereafter, Walsh and Smoot were probably closer than they had been before or would be after. On February 2, 1924, two days after Doheny testified, Smoot played golf with Walsh, Jones, and Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas at the Chevy Chase Country Club. They decided to have the Federal Trade Commission accountants examine the books of Hibbs and Company and report the names of those dealing in stocks of Sinclair's and Doheny's companies at about the time of making the leases.23 Smoot agreed to this, despite the fact that such an investigation might have turned up the name of his son Harold and thereby linked him to Doheny.

Thereafter the relationship between W^alsh and Smoot deteriorated as Walsh and the Democratic members of Congress had a field day slinging mud at Republicans. Between February 7 and 11 the Senate discussed a resolution, which Walsh supported, calling for Secretary Denby's resignation. Smoot considered it "an outrage." Nothing had linked Denby to any payoffs. Then the hearings got out of hand. By February 15 the committee had listened to a number of irresponsible witnesses who knew nothing of the case but were apparently seeking publicity.24 An attempt was made to connect Senators Smoot and Lenroot to Fall and the oil scandals. Western Union telegrams to and from Washington and Palm Beach between Fall, McLean, and government officials were subpoenaed. Smoot was convinced that the "real object was to involve the administration and myself and Senator Lenroot with the oil 2

- Smoot Diaries, December 3 1 , 1922, January 26, November 30, 1923.

23

Ibid., February 2, 1924.

24

Ibid., February 8, 11, 15, 1924.

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

361

scandals. They will fail in as far as myself is concerned."

Smoot gave an interview to a representative of the Hearst newspaper chain in which he told of the meeting that he and Lenroot had held with Fall at the W T ardman Park Hotel in late December 1923. At that meeting, which Walsh agreed had been perfectly proper, Smoot and I^enroot had urged the former secretary to tell the committee where he had secured the money. Fall had refused but said he would take it under consideration. After the Washington Herald published Smoot's interview, the Reed Smoot. Utah State Historical senator said that the reporter Society collections. had lied about his statements. 2 Sen. J. Thomas Heflin, Democrat oi Alabama, discussed the story in the Senate, insinuating that Smoot a n d Lenroot h a d done wrong in contacting Fall. This seems unwarranted, Neither m a n denied meeting with Fall, and both agreed that they had urged Fall to make a full disclosure of his business dealings. Moreover, the interview was held with the full knowledge of Fall's chief antagonist, Thomas Walsh. Nevertheless, the Hearst papers continued to attack the U t a h senator. 2 ' 1 Shortly thereafter, Lenroot resigned as chairman and member of the committee. It has been alleged that he did so as a result of the Wardman Park conference revelation; but Smoot, who was close to the situation, believed that Lenroot h a d taken the step because of poor health.

Smoot was sorry that it happened "particularly at this time." Edwin F. L a d d of North Dakota, a Republican insurgent just as Lenroot h a d been, took the Wisconsin senator's place. 2.

O n J u n e 6, 1924, one day before the first session of the Sixty-eighth Congress ended, Walsh filed the committee's majority report. Walsh, Ladd, Jones, Kendrick, Peter Norbeck of South Dakota, Alva B. Adams 25

Ibid., February 26, 27, 1924.

Ibid., March 3, 1924; Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 119-20.

27 See, however, Noggle, Teapot Dome, p. 120; Smoot Diaries, March 11, 1924.

20

362

Utah Historical

Quarterly

of Colorado, C. C. Dill of Washington, and Key Pittman of Nevada signed the report. Five members of the committee led by Selden P. Spencer of Missouri and including Smoot, Robert N. Stanfield of Oregon, Cameron, and Bursum refused to sign and filed a minority report shortly after the opening of the second session.28 Walsh, in an obvious bit of hyperbole, called the majority report "an unimpassioned and impartial narrative of the proceedings before the committee and the disclosures made by the hearings." In answer to the statement of the minority members that they had had insufficient time to consider the issues, Walsh pointed out that the hearings had ended on May 14, and he h a d submitted the draft to the committee on June 4. Senator Spencer h a d tried earlier to get a preliminary copy, but the Montana senator refused until he submitted it to the entire committee on June 4.

During the two-day consideration of the report, during the last days of the session, Walsh pointed out that only Smoot, Stanfield, and Spencer of the dissenting group had been able to spend any significant time in the committee deliberations, and none of them was there all the time. T h e debate between Spencer and Walsh showed, however, that the committee members did not review the evidence, in spite of its tremendous implications, but merely proofread the report and corrected it in the light of their own recollections. T o have given the evidence a careful examination, as Spencer pointed out, would have been "physically impossible" in only two days. 29 T h e majority report began with a recitation of the facts leading up to the transfer of jurisdiction over the reserves by executive order. It then alleged that the transfer, the methods by which the leases had been made, and the contracts for the construction of storage facilities had been illegal.

T h e majority admitted that the problem of oil loss was a matter of professional opinion but thought the leases unnecessary. T h e essential points of the majority argument rested upon a narrow interpretation of the power of the president, secretary of the interior, and secretary of the navy; upon the money given Fall by Sinclair and Doheny; and upon a view that held the value of the oil lost through drainage less significant than the cost of constructing storage facilities in Hawaii. 3 " In view of the lateness in the session, the minority members chose to wait until they h a d a further opportunity to examine the records of the hearings, submitting their report after the opening of the next session 28 29 00

1924.

Smoot Diaries, June 6, 1924; Noggle, Teapot Dome, p. 154.

Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess., 1924, pp. 10937-38.

Ibid., pp. 10938-49; U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Report 794, 68th Cong., 1st sess.,

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

363

of Congress. They were at a decided disadvantage, principally because both they and the majority agreed that Fall had been found guilty of dishonesty. T h e other questions were matters of interpretation. T h e minority accepted the Bureau of Mines view that the oil was being drained away and praised the oil tank policy and Fall and Denby for inaugurating it.

Ultimately, the majority would not allow the Harding administration to be painted in shades of grey and demanded complete exoneration or condemnation. T h e vote on the two reports was, in essence, a vote to support or condemn Secretary Fall, and the result was a foregone conclusion. O n January 20, 1925, the Senate rejected the minority report by a vote of 28 to 42 and adopted the majority report by 41 to 30. 31 T h e majority view' was certainly not "unimpassioned" nor that of the minority unbiased. T h e majority report reflected, perhaps as clearly as any document of the times, the political climate of the 1920s. It demonstrated the continued Progressive sentiment on the one hand and the feeling of liberal impotence in the face of rampant probusiness Republicanism on the other. Here was a way to slap at the Republicans and the business community, both of whom professed their righteousness, and land a blow for Progressive principles.

T h e views of the minority, on the other hand, while supporting the administration, represented a continuation of the conservationist tradition of the previous decades. Once lost, the oil from Teapot Dome could not be recovered. T o the minority, the only sensible solution was to recover the oil and store it for future use. In line with the rather broad interpretation of conservationist policy characteristic of the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the minority viewed the transfer and drilling as a matter of administrative discretion. This wras much like Smoot's support of Roosevelt's creation of forest reservations. Pinchot and Roosevelt had set them aside to control the use of the timber and make it available for future generations.

In the suits for canceling the oil leases, the United States district courts in Wyoming and California sustained the minority view of the executive powers, and the United States Supreme Court sustained the majority view. Later, Fall was convicted of taking a bribe from Doheny and Sinclair was sentenced for contempt of court for tampering with a jury. Doheny went free, and neither Doheny nor Sinclair was convicted of bribery. 32 31 Senate Report 794, part 3 ; Donald C. Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, 1921-1933 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), pp. 6 6 - 6 8 ; Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 154, 178.

-Pan American Company v. U.S., 273 U.S., 4 5 6 ; Mammoth Oil Company v. U.S., 275 U.S., 13; Noggle, Teapot Dome, pp. 182-86, 2 1 0 - 1 1 .

364

Utah Historical

Quarterly

As for Smoot's connection with the scandal, there is no evidence that he was guilty of any impropriety. As committee chairman, he allowed Walsh and others the greatest latitude and went as far as to negotiate with Sinclair to allow Walsh to investigate the oilman's business affairs.

Smoot had conducted business with Doheny, but he was willing to risk exposure of those dealings by investigating stock transfers in which his family name might have been implicated. Smoot agreed on the need for removing oil from the ground and storing it in tanks, but this feeling developed in the interest of conservation for naval use of this valuable resource. His disagreement with Walsh on the powers of the executive branch do not constitute a crime but merely a difference of constitutional interpretation.

Smoot's commitment to conservation must be seen in context.

Though a major issue of the 1920s, Teapot Dome was not the only instance of the U t a h senator's taking a stand on conservation questions.

Probably because of his duties as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee after January 1924, Smoot was not as intimately connected with conservation as he had been before 1921. Still, his views demonstrate a pattern consistent with his previous proconservation record.

In an earlier article on Smoot's activities through 1920, I argued for the development of a new category of conservationistâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the businessminded conservationistâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;to which I assigned Smoot and a number of his colleagues. Smoot seems to have favored a combination of preservation, public development, and private and state use of natural resources. H e sought cooperation between the federal government, the states, and private business. H e favored the creation of national parks for the preservation of scenic wonders. Where governmental activity seemed necessary, he supported it. If, on the other hand, it seemed likely that private business or the states could handle the matter adequately, he favored that method of control. 33 As a case in point, Smoot's position on hydroelectric and reclamation projects was consistent with his earlier views.

Though Smoot had compromised on the Water Power Act of 1920 to achieve development of this important natural resource, he vehemently opposed federal construction of generating facilities on projects where he thought private business could do as well. H e considered Sen. George W. Norris's Muscle Shoals bill for improvement of the Tennessee River, in his words, "rotten." H e also opposed the Boulder D a m project for development of federal power generating facilities on the Colorado River. 31 33

Alexander, "Reed Smoot and Western Land Policy," passim.

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

365

In November 1922 representatives of the seven Colorado River states signed a compact to divide the river's water between the upper basin (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico), and the lower basin (Nevada, Arizona, and California). After Arizonaâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;fearing the loss of Gila River water rightsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;refused to ratify the compact, the other six states negotiated and ratified a new agreement. Thereafter, California Rep. Philip D. Swing and Sen. H i r a m W. Johnson pressed for the construction of a high dam at Boulder Canyon to generate power and store water. 35 Smoot strongly opposed the Swing-Johnson bill. His opposition was quite consistent with the position he had taken on earlier legislation. H e appears to have differentiated between federal power projects which he opposed and reclamation projects which he supported because users repaid the cost of construction and development. Though Charles W. Nibley, U t a h Republican leader and presiding bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, thought Smoot's views would hurt him in the West, other political leaders were also opposed. Particularly vigorous in opposition were Sen. Henry F. Ashurst of Arizona, Gov. George H . Dern of Utah, Gov. Frank C. Emerson of Wyoming, and power company officials such as Sidney Z. Mitchell and D. C. Green. 30 Smoot, like Governor Dern, feared U t a h might lose the rights to water in the Colorado River if provisions were not written into the bill to protect the states from appropriations by southern California. In private conversation, early in 1927, Smoot warned Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover and Secretary of the Interior Hubert Work that unless the bill contained guarantees to protect Utah's interests in the river, he would recommend that the U t a h legislature repeal the six-state compact. W h e n such protection was not added to the bill, both he and Governor Dern recommended repeal, which the legislature soon accomplished. Thereafter, Smoot lobbied to secure enough votes to prevent cloture on the bill, and an Arizona-sponsored filibuster defeated the measure in 1927. T h e realization by California representatives that they could not run roughshod over the interests of other Colorado River states led to compromises on the legislation. Coolidge and Hoover, both of

34 Smoot Diaries, J u n e 28, 1910, January 7, 1921, January 29, 1922, December 17, 1924; Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 2d sess., 1920, p. 6 3 3 6 ; ibid., 3d sess., 1920-21, pp. 2645, 2 6 5 1 - 5 2 : Milton R. Merrill, "Reed Smoot: Apostle in Politics" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950), pp. 4 6 7 - 6 8 ; Melvin Erickson Thayne, "Smoot of U t a h (United States Senator, 1903-1933)'" (M.A. thesis, Stanford University, 1950), p p . 99-100.

35 Beverly Bowen Moeller, Phil Swing and Boulder Dam (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971), pp. 33, 94.

366

Utah Historical

Quarterly

whom had previously opposed the Swing-Johnson bill, changed their positions and came out in favor of the bill before it passed in December 1928. 37 In spite of Smoot's opposition to these federal water-power projects, he avidly supported federal appropriations for reclamation. In January 1920 Smoot met with delegations from the West, among whom were Gov. Simon Bamberger, U t a h irrigation promoter William Wallace, former Gov. William Spry, and Gov. David W. Davis of Idaho to work out programs to secure further appropriations to the reclamation fund.

Legislation designed to make terms of payment for farmers more lenient was passed annually in 1921 through 1924. Smoot also attempted to promote a bill that would have allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to offer its services to private groups at their expense to assist in the development of private projects. This was opposed by more conservative states' rights senators like William H . King who feared increasing the federal bureaucracy. 38 Smoot was particularly dissatisfied with Utah's share of the reclamation fund. As of 1920 the only federal project completed in U t a h was at Strawberry Valley. T h e senator began to work for reclamation on the Provo and Weber rivers. In December 1922 the Bureau of Reclamation began a number of studies on the two rivers. Beyond this, in December 1925, Coolidge asked Smoot and Sen. Lawrence C. Phipps of Colorado to confer with Secretary Work after it became apparent that the people of the West had become displeased with the progress of the reclamation program. Smoot complied, and eventually projects on the Weber and Provo rivers were inaugurated in 1927 and 1935, in part owing to the senator's efforts.39 In addition to reclamation, Smoot's interest in the Forest Service continued in the 1920s. During every session of Congress, bills were presented for exchange of privately owned lands within forest reservations

3,5

Smoot Diaries, December 20, 1925, May 12, 1926, January 4, 7, 12. 1927; Henry Fountain Ashurst, A Many-Colored Toga: The Diary of Henry Fountain Ashurst, ed. George F. Sparks (Tucson, 1962), p. 254.

37 Smoot Diaries, January 11, 14, February 22, 23, 27, May 2, 5, July 19, 1927; Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, p. 9 1 .

38 Smoot Diaries December 9, 1920, January 13, 14, 15, 17, M a r c h 15, 1921, May 17, 1923, February 7, 1924; Swain, Federal Conservation Policy, p. 78; U.S., Congress. Senate.

Senate Report 355, 66th Cong., 2d sess., 1920, Serial 7649; Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 2d sess., 1920, pp. 2061, 2537; ibid., 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1922, p. 828.

39 Smoot Diaries, April 7, 13, July 30, August 25, 27, May 18, 19, 1923, June 7, 1924, April 17, 19, December 8, 1925, March 3, April 5, September 20, 1926; U.S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation Project Data (Washington, D C , 1948), pp.

357, 461.

Teapot

Dome

Revisited

367

Created as Maknntuweap National Monument in 1909 and renamed Zion in 1918, this spectacular scenic area was made a national park on November 19, 1919, through legislation introduced by Sen. Reed Smoot. The Great White Throne is the park's best-known feature. Utah State Historical Society collections.

for federal lands outside the forests. T o promote an orderly and efficient development of the forests, Smoot sponsored a general measure to allow the exchange of lands without congressional approval. He was unable to secure the general legislation which he wanted, however. 4 " I n the spirit of his earlier efforts, Smoot continued to work for the creation and enlargement of national parks and monuments. He successfully secured legislation creating both Zion and Bryce National parks and Cedar Breaks National Monument in Utah, and he worked on other legislation including the enlargement of Mount McKinley National Park in Alaska, Hot Springs National Park in Arkansas, and a special presi-

40 Congressional Record, 67th Cong., 1st sess., 1921, pp. 4993-94; ibid., 2d sess., 1922, pp. 3 6 6 1 - 6 2 ; U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Report 175, 67th Cong., 1st sess., 1921, Serial 7918; U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Report 382, 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1922, Serial 7950; 42 U.S., Statutes at Large, 465.

368

Utah Historical

Quarterly

dential forest reserve in the K i a b a b National Forest near Grand Canyon.

H e pressed also for the preservation of sites on the Mormon Trail in Nebraska. 41 T h e available evidence indicates that the blot the Teapot Dome investigation left on his conservation activities was quite unwarranted.

His opposition to the Boulder Canyon Act came in part from his conservation views because of his dual commitment to maintaining an adequate water supply for the upper basin states and to private development where feasible. T h e image of Smoot as myopically probusiness, however, is quite wrong. His support of federal control of reclamation, forest reserves, and national parks is evidence of that. T h e best definition of Smoot's position seems to be that he was a business-minded conservationist who favored a combination of private, state, and federal control, preservation, and development of natural resources.

T h e proconservation commitment of Walsh and the majority in the Teapot Dome investigation has been overrated. H a d Walsh's view of executive power in conservation been applied to the actions of Theodore Roosevelt, private interests could have run roughshod over the public domain and the federal government would have been powerless, in the absence of specific legislation, to prevent it. T h a t Fall had committed a crime was irrelevant to the question of conservation. Oil reserves once depleted could never be renewed, as we are finding out much to our distress today. Smoot recognized that. Although he agreed that Fall needed to be punished for his wrongdoing, he also realized that making a political issue out of conservation would do nothing to preserve the natural resources of the nation.

41 Smoot Diaries, June 18, 1919, September 11, 15, 17, 28. 1920, January 6, 1922, April 23. 1923, June 6, 1924: U.S.. Congress, Senate, Senate Report 22. 66th Cong., 1st sess.. 1919, Serial 1590: U.S.. Congress, Senate. Senate Report 326, 67th Cong., 2d sess., 1921, Serial 7950: U.S.. Congress, Senate, Senate Report. 647. 67th Cong., 2d sess.. 1922, Serial 7 9 5 1 : U.S..

Congress. Senate. Senate Report 294. 68th Cong.. 1st sess., 1924. Serial 8220: U.S., Congress.

Senate, Senate Reports 620 and 621. 7lst Cong., 2d sess., 1929-30; Congressional Record, 67th Cong 2d sess ]922 pp. 5 6 5 5 - 5 6 : ibid., 4th sess.. 1923, pp. 1284-86: 42 U.S., Statutes at Large 359 and 847 ; ibid., 43 :593 ; ibid., 4 6 : 5 8 2 .

That Smoke-filled Room: A Utahn's Role in the 1920 GOP Convention

BY JEFFREY L. SWANSON

President Warren G. Harding on visit to Utah, Gov. Charles R. Mabey, standing with hat in hand, accompanied the presidential party. Utah State Historical Society collections, gift of Mr. Mabey.

A HE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOOKED forward to the 1920 presidential election with enthusiasm. The 1918 congressional elections had given the GOP a solid majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Although the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson had controlled the White House since 1913, the Republicans, with their senatorial power, had thwarted Wilson's dream of American participation in the League Mr. Swanson is an LDS seminary teacher in Salt Lake City.

370

Utah Historical

Quarterly

of Nations. Thus, Wilson and the Democrats were determined to make the League a major issue in the 1920 election. According to political pundits, a united Republican party could win the presidency. But could the Republicans stay united wrhen they were at odds among themselves over the League? The 1920 Republican National Convention provided the answer.

Wielding considerable influence in shaping the destiny of this convention and his party was the chairman of the Utah delegation and senior senator from Utah, Reed Smoot. A son of Mormon pioneer parents, Reed Smoot was born on January 19, 1862, in Salt Lake City. His father, Abraham O. Smoot, was mayor of that city. In his early youth, the family moved to Provo where he was raised. By his early twenties he was a disciple of Republicanism. Then, in 1900 the thirty-eight-year-old Smoot was ordained a member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by Lorenzo Snow. As an apostle, Reed Smoot served as a "special witness for Christ" until his death forty-one years later. A few years later, in January 1903, the Utah State Legislature elected Smoot to the United States Senate where he stood as a special witness for conservatism for the next thirty years. By 1920 Senator Smoot had acquired a national reputation as a Republican party leader. A personal advisor to Presidents Roosevelt and Taft, he became one of the patriarchs of the Senate. Nevertheless, historians have tended to overlook the role played by Reed Smoot in the 1920 Republican National Convention, an assembly called the "most managed political convention in history."1 The political climate of the convention can be better understood by looking at events that preceded it. During the spring and summer months, before the Chicago convention, a large number of presidential candidates rounded up delegates in state primaries and conventions. So many candidates emerged with widespread delegate support that none entered the national convention within sight of a first ballot nomination. The candidates came from both ends of the political spectrum and from all parts of the nation. Among the front-runners for the nomination were Frank O. Lowden of Illinois, Hiram W. Johnson of California, Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts, Warren G. Harding of Ohio, Leonard Wood of New York, and Herbert Hoover of California.2 Besides the fight of the various candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, a major rift developed over the Treaty of Versailles ' R i c h a r d C. Bain, Convention Decisions p. 207.

2 Chicago Tribune, June 7, 1920.

and Voting

Records

(Washington, D . C , 1960),

The

1920 GOP Convention

371

and the possible United States entry into the League of Nations. O n e wing of the party favored ratification of the treaty and entry into the League. T h e other wing absolutely opposed the treaty as it stood and American participation in the League in any form. T h e middle ground was held by those Republicans who favored ratifying the treaty and League with reservations. Republican leaders realized they would have to write a political platform plank dealing with this issue that would not split the party into two or possibly three factions. T h e Chicago papers gave as much news coverage to this aspect of the convention as they did to the presidential nomination.

Insight into the inner workings of the convention, and Senator Smoot's role in it, can be found in the senator's diary. From the Smoot diary, and the newspapers, it can be seen that the U t a h senator played a pivotal role in forming the Republican platform and selecting the G O P presidential nominee. 3 O n June 6, 1920, when Senator Smoot arrived in Chicago, he was concerned with a possible split in the Republican party over the League of Nations issue. Regarding the presidential race, Smoot believed H a r d ing would be the nominee. Before the convention Smoot had written a letter to his close associate James Clove explaining his support for Harding.

I believe that the U t a h delegation should go to the national convention uninstructed. Everything's to be gained by that course and nothing lost. T h e opinion a m o n g many of the politicians is that Senator H a r d i n g stands as good a chance to receive the nomination as any m a n in the race. He is not antagonizing any of the other candidates, and wherever he goes he has m a d e a wonderful impression. U p to date no one can tell w h o the nominee will be. Senator H a r d i n g would make a wonderful president. 4

U t a h went to the national convention with eight delegate votesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; four at-large and two from each congressional district. T h e delegation included Mormons and non-Mormons and, for the first time, a woman.

Those chosen were Reed Smoot, Jeanette Hyde, J. W. Eldredge, Jr., J. C. Lynch, C. P. Cardon, L. R. Anderson, Harold P. Fabian, and C. E. Loose. T h e U t a h delegation garnered special attention from the candidates for two reasons. First, U t a h was one of the last states to vote on a roll call, and on a close vote the eight U t a h delegates could be crucial to 3 Reed Smoot, Diaries of Reed Smoot, June 6, 1920, manuscript, Special Collections, Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, U t a h .

4 Smoot to Clove, March 20, 1920, cited in Milton R. Merrill. "Reed Smoot, Apostle in Politics" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950), p. 333. Italics added.

372

Utah Historical

Quarterly

victory. Second, the candidates and power factions recognized Senator Smoot's influence as a major convention force. One of the non-Mormon delegates from Utah remarked that "he had never seen such interest displayed in the Utah delegation in a national convention."5 Senator Smoot also recognized his own importance, for after he visited various campaign headquarters, he wrote in his diary: "I was greeted by leading Republicans of the country and congratulated for my spendid work in the Senate." 6 On June 7 the Utah delegation caucused and elected Reed Smoot chairman.

When committee assignments were made Smoot was appointed to serve on the convention's Committee on Resolutions (platform committee). At the same meeting, Senator Smoot decided to resign his position on the Republican National Committee. Part of the eastern press saw his replacement as a sign that he was losing his political power.7 Smoot foresaw the reaction and wrote in his diary that the eastern wing of the party would not understand his resignation and would "claim I was defeated."8 One of the charges leveled at the 1920 Republican National Convention is that it was controlled by a small cabal of senators. The evidence to support this contention mounts as the Reed Smoot diary is examined in conjunction with the convention's proceedings. Senator Smoot made his first reference to this influential group in his diary when he and several other senators met in George Harvey's hotel room to discuss the staffing of convention posts and the League of Nations platform plank.

Harvey, a Democrat-turned-Republican who considered himself to be a presidential kingmaker, was the editor and publisher of Harvey's Weekly, a news magazine, and later the editor of the North American Review. Of the meeting in Harvey's room Smoot wrote "that it was decided to make the temporary officersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;permanent."9 This move gave Henry Cabot Lodge, senator from Massachusetts and a political ally of Smoot, the chairmanship, a position crucial in rulings on recesses and adjournments. This meeting was one of the first signs of Senator Smoot's role in the inner circle of politicians who guided the destiny of the 1920 Republican convention.

"Provo (Utah) Post, June 8, 1920.

Smoot Diary, June 6, 1920.

7 Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1920.

8 Smoot Diary, June 7, 1920.

9 Ibid., June 9, 1920.

0

The 1920 GOP

373

Convention

Heber J. Grant was one of many LDS leaders who favored the League of Nations. Utah State Historical Society collections.

On June 8 the Committee on Resolutions met and appointed a subcommittee of thirteen, including Smoot, to write the Republican platform.10 The greatest challenge facing the platform subcommittee was the writing of a League of Nations plank that would not split the party. Senators William E. Borah of Idaho and Hiram Johnson of California threatened to bolt the party if the platform supported United States entrance into the League.11 Faced with this pressure and with the need to report a platform to the convention, the subcommittee organized a small group, again including Smoot, to work solely on formulating a

compromise League of Nations plank that most delegates could accept.

This was a sensitive job for Utah's apostle-senator who faced a personal dilemma over the League of Nations issue. The voters of Utah had supported President Woodrow Wilson for reelection in 1916 and had expressed overwhelming approval of the League of Nations. Many of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, during the October 1919 church conference, came out strongly in favor of American support of the League. LDS President Heber J. Grant saw the League of Nations as a great opportunity to bring peace to the world.12 Smoot's opposition to the League put him at variance with the majority of the church's apostles. During the Senate debate over the League, Smoot had softened his opposition and supported ratification of the Wilson peace treaty with reservations; however, he was noticeably quiet on the Senate floor when the League was debated. Because the senator was up for reelection in 1920, he could only be helped with a League of Nations plank that would not antagonize Utah voters.

10

Chicago Tribune, J u n e 9, 1920. " E u g e n e H . Roseboom, A History of Presidential Company, 1957), p . 393.

12 Merrill, "Apostle in Politics," p. 164.

Elections

(New York: Macmillan

374

Utah Historical

Quarterly

I n his J u n e 9 diary entry Smoot recorded his fear that chances for a party bolt were increasing. Unless a compromise was reached over the League of Nations plank, he felt the party was faced with a certain split.

Such a division, he believed, would result in the election of a Democrat as it had in 1912 when the Republicans had split between Taft and Roosevelt. T h e two factions of the Republican party together had outpolled the Democratic nominee, but, with the G O P divided, Wilson had been elected by a sizeable electoral plurality.

At 1:00 A.M. on the morning of June 10 Smoot met with Senators Borah, Frank B. Brandegee, and Joseph Medill McCormick in George Harvey's room to try to work out a compromise. Although Smoot tried to be a conciliator, his efforts were futile. H e recorded that he had tried "to reach a compromise, at 3:00 A.M. [but] had made little headway." H e went to bed very discouraged. 13 T h e Committee on Resolutions was scheduled to meet at 9:00 A.M. As of 8:30 A.M. there was still not a compromise plank on the League of Nations to present to the subcommittee.

Previous accounts are unclear about what took place next, and none seems to give credit to Senator Smoot for his role in the compromise that saved the convention from a devastating schism. Books dealing with this subject mention Smoot's presence at the meeting that morning, but they do not credit him as the major force behind the resulting compromise.

Once again Smoot's diary gives insight into what took place. T h e senator wrote: I met Borah at 8:50 A.M. ready to enter the committee room. I called him aside and read him a proposed plank or substitute for the Crane or Mills plank and asked him if he would consider it. He called McCormick (and I got Ogden Mills) and we went into room 222 of the Auditorium Hotel and I closed the door and stated we would not leave the room until we had reached an agreement. 14

T h e authorship of the plank Smoot submitted is attributed to several men. O n e source states that George Harvey wrote the compromise plank.

Another claims it was the work of several individuals. Smoot's diary appears to solve the controversy. H e said the plank was written by Senator and former Secretary of State Elihu Root. 15 Part of the compromise plank stated that the Republicans would enter Smoot Diary, June 9, 1920.

Ibid., June 10, 1920.

Roseboom, Presidential Elections,

p. 3 9 3 ; Smoot Diary, June 10, 1920.

The

1920 GOP

Convention

375

. . . such agreements with other nations of the world as shall meet the full duty of America to civilization and humanity, in accordance with American ideals and without surrendering the right of the American people to exercise its j u d g m e n t and its power in favor of justice and peace. 1 0

T h e plank avoided a direct stand on the issue. First, it did not pledge the Republican party to ratify the treaty and enter the League of Nations; on the other hand it did not say thai: the Republicans would not do so. Second, the plank praised the Senate for not ratifying the treaty without the proper safeguards of American democracy. Third, it stated that any League of Nations commitment must be in full harmony with American ideals and the principles of George Washington (no entangling alliances). 17 Those who supported the League could accept the plank because it agreed to international association, at least in principle. Those opposing the League could live with the plank because it denounced the Wilson covenant signed in Paris and the president's refusal to allow the Senate to add any amendments. 1 8 T h e Republicans formed a plank that meant all things to all people.

After Borah, McCormick, and Ogden L. Mills accepted Smoot's proposal of the Root compromise, the committee as a whole adopted the plank and forwarded it to the convention. Smoot and Sen. James Watson, committee chairman, rushed the completed platform to the floor of the convention where it was overwhelmingly approved.

Smoot enjoyed the praise of party leaders and the pro-Republican press for his role in the compromise. O n e New York paper wrote that "Senator Smoot was there as conciliator, adjustor, regarding the possibility of a fight on the floor as nothing short of a calamity." 19 Senator Borah stated that ". . . the work done by Senator Smoot in initiating this compromise has saved the Republican party." 2 0 T h e chairman of the Republican National Committee, William H. Hays, put his arm around Senator Smoot and said, "This is the greatest day's work you have done in your life, a crowning achievement." 2 1 Smoot's hometown newspaper editorialized: "Today Senator Reed Smoot stands as the biggest m a n at the Chicago Convention with all factions of the party praising Utah's 16

Roseboom, Presidential Elections, p. 393. " K e i t h C. Wahlquist, "Biography of Reed Smoot," p. 1057, microfilm, special collections, Lee Library.

18 Bain, Convention Decisions, p. 204.

19 New York Evening Post, June 10, 1920.

20 Provo Post, June 11, 1920. Italics added.

21

Ibid.

376

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Senator for the splendid work he accomplished yesterday in the platform committee."22 When the convention reconvened on Friday, June 11, it was to nominate the Republican candidate for president of the United States.

As indicated before, the candidates were legion. Warren G. Harding's campaign manager, Harry M. Daugherty, predicted that Harding would be nominated in a smoke-filled room, at 2:00 A.M. in the morning, due to a convention deadlock.23 Four ballots were held on Friday and no candidate came close to receiving a majority of the delegates votes. Four hundred and ninety-three votes out of nine hundred and eighty-four cast were needed for the nomination. After the fourth ballot, Smoot requested Chairman Lodge to recess the convention. Despite the strong opposition of many of the delegates, Lodge ruled that Senator Smoot's motion to adjourn had carried. A reporter asked Smoot why he had moved for adjournment, and he replied, "Oh, there is going to be a deadlock, and we'll have to work out some solution; and we wanted the night to think it over."24 The evening of June 11 would go down in political history as "the night of the smoke-filled room." George Harvey's room at the Blackstone Hotel again provided the meeting place of the Republican Senate chieftains. Seven senators met that night with Harvey: Smoot, Lodge of Massachusetts, McCormick of Illinois, William M. Calder of New York, Charles Curtis of Kansas, Brandegee of Connecticut, and Watson of Indiana. 25 Other important Republicans were in and out of Harvey's room throughout the night. What happened in that room has never been fully documented. Different writers have arrived at decidedly different opinions about what took place. Smoot's role is obscured by the news blackout observed by those present. However, some stories that have emerged from the famous meeting merit investigation.

From the beginning, Smoot seems to have been the only one present to have had a decided opinion on who the nominee should be. He continually pushed the name of Harding to anyone that wrould listen.20 As 22

Ibid.

Roseboom, Presidential Elections, p. 394.

24 Wesley N. Bagby, The Road to Normalcy (Baltimore, 1962), p. 85.

25 Chicago Tribune, June 12, 1920.

20 Apparently Smoot saw in H a r d i n g a candidate who was noncontroversial, nonassertive, and, most of all, electable. T h e Republican majority in the Senate wanted to throw off the yoke of a Democratic president, but they were not ready to submit to a strong Republican executive. Harding would neither dominate the Republican leaders of Congress nor try to undermine their power. See also, FYancis Russell, The Shadow of Blooming Grove (New York, 1968), p. 380.

23

The 1920 GOP Convention

377

the night progressed, name after name was discussed and discarded. The only one that kept surfacing was Harding. As Smoot had said when he left for the convention, "Harding has not antagonized any of the other candidates." 27 Several accounts agree that the cabal of senators seriously considered the possibility of nominating the Mormon apostle for president. James A. Farley, Democrat and future postmaster general of the United States, told Creed Haymond: I have been reliably informed t h a t Reed Smoot was offered the nomination for the Presidency of the U n i t e d States, on the Republican ticket, if he would deny his faithâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;his being a M o r m o n would make it impossible for him to receive any such nomination. 2 8

Several years later Haymond asked Smoot if what Farley had said was true. Smoot replied: "In two national conventions I was offered the nomination for President of the United States, if I could turn against my Church." 29 Smoot's grandson, Samuel P. Smoot, wrote: I don't believe that the Senator actually sought the nomination for his party. I remember my D a d [Harlow Smoot] saying that his father was asked to be a candidate by Republican leaders but declined on perhaps more than one occasion. My D a d did tell me in particular t h a t when H a r d i n g was nominated and during the meetings at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago and during "the smoke filled r o o m " incident, when approached to see if he would be willing to run for President, Senator Smoot m a d e the statement that he would rather be a deacon in the M o r m o n C h u r c h with its possibilities t h a n President of the U n i t e d States, and t h a t he would not w a n t to r u n for the office because it would just stir u p all the old animosities against the M o r m o n C h u r c h . M y D a d was in the Blackstone Hotel with his father at the time but he was not in the smoke-filled room. . . . As I understand it, on both occasions that the Senator more or less declined the nomination as a Presidential candidate the Republican nominee was elected. 30

Senator Smoot's diary is very sketchy as to what happened that night. He never mentions his own name, or anyone else's, being considered for the nomination.31 However, he did record his fight to nominate Harding and his personal ties to the Ohio senator: 27

Merrill, "Apostle in Politics," p. 333.

Bryant S. Hinckley, The Faith of Our Pioneer Fathers (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1956), pp. 201-2.

29 Ibid.

30 Smoot to Swanson, July 3, 1974.

31 There is no way of knowing if Smoot could have won the nomination, even with the backing of the senators at the Blackstone that night. Unless Smoot had completely left the LDS church, Mormonism would have been an issue. And h a d Smoot left his church, his credibility would have been damaged. As Al Smith later would discover, the nation was not ready for a non-Protestant president.

28

378

Utah Historical

Quarterly

McKirkwood of the Kansas City Star was opposed to Harding and I had George Harvey arrange a meeting which he did. I tryed [sic] to get him to withdraw his opposition. . . . I saw Senator Harding and told him of the situation before going to bed.32

After the meeting, as Smoot went to his hotel room, he met a reporter from the New York Telegram. Smoot leaked the news that a group of senators meeting in Harvey's room had decided upon Harding at about 2:00 in the morning.33 On Saturday, June 12, Senator Smoot was at the convention early to carry out the strategy formulated the night before. He contacted many delegates, assuring them that Harding would be nominated without hurting the sensitivities of the other candidates. 3 ' Smoot alluded to the strategy in his diary. He wrote that few men knew about the agreement and fewer thought it could be brought about. "I told the Utah delegation Harding would be nominated. . . . It was decided it was best to recess the convention after the eighth ballot. The reason being to placate the two main candidates Lowden and Wood."3" The senatorial cabal decided not to press Harding's candidacy on an early ballot. They waited until the major candidates had exhausted their delegate strength. After the seventh ballot, Smoot and Lodge were put in a position directly opposed to their actions of Friday. The major candidates wanted the convention to adjourn until Monday morning, giving them an extra day to increase their delegate strength. Smoot and Lodge waged a major battle to keep the convention from taking a weekend recess.36 The Chicago heat, the humidity, and hotel prices worked in favor of Smoot and Lodge. The delegates voted to continue the balloting.

The eighth ballot showed that none of the major candidates was getting any closer to the nomination, although Senator Harding was gaining in delegate strength. Smoot was the only Utah delegate to vote for Harding until the ninth ballot. After the eighth ballot the Ohio delegation sensed a bandwagon starting to roll in favor of their native son. They were astonished and angered when Smoot moved for a short recess. He left the platform and went to the Ohio delegation to explain his motion.

He told them that there must be time spent to placate Lowden and Wood before Harding was nominated. Otherwise, they might not fully support 32

Smoot Diary, June 11, 1920.

Russell, The Shadow of Blooming Grove, p. 383.

34 Samuel H. Adams, Incredible Era (Boston, 1939), p. 158.

33 Smoot Diary, June 12, 1920.

30 New York Times, June 13, 1920.

33

The 1920 GOP Convention

379

Harding's candidacy.37 After the recess it was evident that the senators had done their work well. Delegation after delegation switched to Harding, including six of Smoot's colleagues in Utah. On the tenth ballot, Harding was nominated. Not only was Smoot a Mormon apostle, he was a political prophet.

Shortly after the voting, Smoot asked Harding "who he wanted for Vice-President and he thought it best not to suggest anyone."38 The convention nominated Gov. Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts for vice-president on the first ballot. Once the nominations had been completed, the Chicago Tribune interviewed Smoot for his reaction to the candidates.

He replied "the ticket is entirely satisfactory to me. So is the platform.

Senator Harding will make a wonderful President."39 Smoot's enthusiasm for Harding was returned by the presidential candidate for the apostle. Harding invited Smoot to accompany him on the train from Chicago to Washington, D. C. While traveling, they had a conference about the upcoming presidential campaign. During one of those meetings, Harding made an impressive offer to Smoot: Senator H a r d i n g told me yesterday that I was to be part of his administration and if I wanted to be Secretary of the Treasury I [had] but to ask for it. H e told me he was not making promises for appointments b u t wanted m e to know how he felt. 40

Smoot preferred Congress to the cabinet.

In review, it is clear that Senator Smoot played a major role in shaping the Chicago convention. His work on the platform committee helped save the Republicans from a disastrous split over the League of Nations. His work on behalf of Harding; was important in the Ohio senator's nomination. His skill in placating the other candidates, to keep the party united, helped dissolve some of the bitterness that naturally would follow a convention defeat. Finally, the question still hoversâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in the smoke-filled room was Reed Smoot offered the presidential nomination and could he have won it? That question may never be answered, but the possibilities for speculation are fascinating.

37

Smoot Diary, June 12, 1920.

Ibid.

39 Chicago Tribune, June 13, 1920.

40 Smoot Diary, June 14, 1920.

38

The Public Image of Sen. Reed Smoot, 1902-32

BY J A N

Cartoon

by Alan L. Lovey on the controversy

SHIPPS

over seating Sen. Reed

Smoot.

1926 F O R U M MAGAZINE surveyed the contemporary religious scene in the United States in a series of articles by eminent members of major

I N

Dr. Shipps is associate professor of history and religious studies at Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis. T h e author gratefully acknowledges the research grant received from the Center for American Studies and the assistance of Sandra Davidson.

Senator Smoot's Public Image

381

American faiths. Each installment contained a description of the basic creed and a discussion of what it meant to be a member. For example, G. K. Chesterton explained why he was a Roman Catholic, Harry Sloane Coffin why he was a Presbyterian, Rufus Jones why he was a Quaker. In one of the later installments Reed Smoot, a long-standing apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and senior United States senator from Utah, explained—in a clear, straightforward, concise, believable statement—why he was a Mormon. 1 Because this was the first time that any fairly comprehensive examination of American religion in a mass circulation magazine placed Mormonism at par and treated it with the same respect as other religions, Smoot's article marked a turning point in the way Mormonism was dealt with in the public press.2 This pivotal essay signaled a changed climate that made the inclusion of a Mormon confession of faith in a national magazine possible. Smoot had served in the United States Senate during the quarter-century in which that change occurred, and he had come to represent—to non-Mormons at least—more dramatically and completely than any individual since Brigham Young, the epitome of the Mormon faith.

Latter-day Saints, long accustomed to negative, and by their standards unfair, treatment of their religion must have been gratified to see something written from their own point of view. The church authorities were unquestionably pleased. They had been pursuing an active public relations policy designed to defend the church and the Mormon people from anti-Mormon propaganda for over a decade. Church leaders soon ordered the senator's article reprinted as an official LDS tract, thus emphasizing Smoot's connection with Mormonism, associating the church with his respectability, and thereby allowing Mormons to capitalize on the senator's praiseworthy reputation. 3 1 Reed Smoot, "Why I Am a M o r m o n : Confessions of Faith, X , " Forum 76 ( 1 9 2 6 ) : 562-69. These articles were published as a book under the title Twelve Modern Apostles and Their Creeds. Although many single articles written by Latter-day Saints had been published earlier—some of them in reputable journals—such articles were generally accompanied by editorial comment that either expressed condescension or outright hostility. This was the first significant example of Mormonism's having been accorded genuinely equal treatment.

2 An elaborate description of the treatment of Mormons and Mormonism in the periodical press is contained in the author's "From Satyr to Saint: American Attitudes toward the Mormons, 1860—1960," a paper outlining the results of a systematic examination of the periodical literature on U t a h and the Mormons that was presented at the 1973 annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians.

3 For assessment of Forum's standing and influence, see Frank L u t h e r Mott's sketch in his History of American Magazines, 5 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d University Press, 1957), 4 : 5 1 1 - 2 3 . Circulation figures here and throughout this study were taken from N.W. Ayer & Son's annual Directories of Newspapers and Periodicals.

Although it would probably be improper to say that the L D S church was conducting a public relations campaign during this period, it is nevertheless true that a variety of activities

382

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Earlier in the century, any similar attempt to utilize the Utah senator as Mormon exemplar would have been vitiated by the widespread belief that Smoot was a polygamist, a traitor, or both.4 The traditional view holds that the senator overcame his negative image by dint of hard work, an earnest and reverent approach to life, and the strict avoidance of even the appearance of evil. During his three decades in the Senate, Reed Smoot reversed the popular judgment to become a man who "added more luster to the name of Utah than any man . . . since the days of its founder."5 To put it another way, Smoot's public image was altered in significant ways between 1902 when his Senate career began and 1932 when that part of his life came to an end.

The accepted picture of a virtuous and patriotic public servant of vast influence and power that had displaced the original conception of Smoot as lawbreaker and libertine, proved a potent political asset in Utah. Although partisan attempts to question its validity were made from such as Tabernacle Choir tours, the establishment of visitors' centers, and a program of placing articles favorable to the Mormon church in the leading papers and journals of the day indicate that a concentrated effort to change American opinion about the Mormons was under way. See Reed Smoot, Diaries of Reed Smoot, May 3, 1916, manuscript, Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, U t a h , for the charge to James E. Talmage to defend the church through the American press. See also the entry of October 1, 1926.

4 In 1903 the Salt Lake Ministerial Association's protest against Reed Smoot's being allowed to remain in the Senate did not specifically charge personal involvement in the practice of polygamy, but it did charge that as one of the "ruling authorities" of the LDS church he was guilty of encouraging " a belief in polygamy and polygamous cohabitation" and countenancing and conniving "at violations of the laws of the state prohibiting the same." A second protest signed by the Methodist minister John Leilich charged that the senator was actually living and cohabiting with two wives. I n Washington, Leilich's charges were dismissed as "sheer invention," but throughout the nation "good people who had not followed the case closely" continued to assert that Smoot himself was a polygamist. See "Mormonism on the Rack," Review of Reviews 29 ( 1 9 0 4 ) : 3 9 8 - 4 0 0 T h e charge cf treason was based on the assumption that "the Church had broken its covenants to die country and that Apostle Smoot could not be either a loyal citizen of the nation or a free representative of the people of his state" because he was a member of a "confessed band of lawbreaking traitors." T h e wording is Frank J. Cannon's in Under the Prophet in Utah (Boston: C M. Clark Publishing Co., 1911), but variations on the same theme appeared over and over again during the Senate investigation of Smoot's right to be seated. T h e charge was revived and intensified between 1910 and 1915. Even after the Senate investigation confirmed Smoot's right to a seat, the notions that he was virtually or operationally guilty of practicing polygamy and m a t he was part of a conspiracy to destroy the U.S. government persisted for an astonishing length of time.

5

Deseret News, M a r c h 13, 1933.

When Smoot first went to Washington his identification with the LDS church was almost complete; during his first term 94 percent of the periodical articles that dealt with the U t a h senator in any significant way at least mentioned the fact that he was a Mormon. During the 1920s the tendency to identify Reed Smoot as a Mormon whenever he was mentioned in the press diminished drastically; only about 30 percent of the articles made mention of his church connection. See also Milton R. Merrill, "Reed Smoot, Apostle in Politics" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1950), pp. 286, 2 8 9 - 9 2 ; Smoot Diaries, especially between the death of LDS President Joseph F. Smith in November 1918 and the 1920 election.

Senator

Smoot's

Public Image

383

time to time, the image was never effectively challenged. 0 A strong case can be made that the image of immense influenceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a picture the senator h a d been anxious to projectâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in conjunction with his rigid conservatism, accounts, finally, for Smoot's defeat in 1932 when circumstances made flexibility and a liberal stance more desirable. But that is another study.

T h e popular conception of Reed Smoot's public image has never been subjected to systematic historical analysis, and that is what is being attempted here.

Since World W a r I I survey research techniques have been developed that make it possible to construct elaborate and exceedingly reliable public images of contemporary persons. Research methods sophisticated enough to allow comparable public-image profiles of historical figures have not yet been developed. Historians have found it so difficult to determine what the public said, thought, and felt about particular individuals that public-image studies of historical figures have largely been impressionistic comparisons of images and the realities they reflect.

Recognizing the thorny theoretical and methodological problems involved, this study attempts to deal with the image itself. Rather than trying to correlate the senator's public image with the real Reed Smoot, the present study will describe his image as precisely as possible, determine the extent to which it changed over time, suggest how and why changes either occurred or failed to occur, and examine the manner in which the image was projected, controlled, and utilized.

METHODOLOGICAL

APPROACH

Studies that set forth an image and use it as a baseline to measure the disparity between what people thought about a person and what the person actually was like can tolerate a certain imprecision in the description of the image; studies that deal with the image itself demand exact formulation. T o illustrate: Thomas G. Alexander's study of Smoot's land policy shows that the picture of Smoot as an unfailing conservative does not always stand u p under examination; but as far as the comparison between image and reality is concerned, it does not matter exactly howconservative people thought the senator was. If, however, a comparison 6 As early as December 17, 1907, John M. Whitaker, an L D S bishop from Salt Lake City, wrote in his journal that Smoot "is now one of the most powerful men in Washington and his word is law in tariff matters." Whitaker's journal is in Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of U t a h . T h e most persistent attack on the "myth of his greatness" came during Smoot's 1926 reelection campaign. For an idiosyncratic but entertaining account of tiiis campaign see Wayne Stout, History of Utah, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: author, 1968), 2 : 5 1 3 - 1 6 . Merrill's treatment of the 1926 campaign in "Apostle in Politics" is more judicious.

384

Utah Historical

Quarterly

were to be made between how conservative the senator was perceived to be in 1906 and then in 1926, or how conservative he seemed to the people of U t a h as opposed to the people of the United States, a more precise description would be required.

Exact formulation of the public image of a historical figure depends on understanding what a public image is and on developing a suitable procedure for reconstructing that image from the historical record so that it can be stated with enough precision to admit comparison. As for the term public image, when the midtwentieth century explosion of information sources and the associated growth of the public relations industry emphasized the need for understanding what public images are and how they come to be, explanations were often based on concepts taken from theories of cognition and communication and the sociology of knowledge. Popularized as "the medium is the message," such explanations were often misunderstood and dismissed. But the public images remained, and they are ultimately to be comprehended only with reference to a theoretical framework that attempts to take nonverbal messages into account. T h e concept that has proved most useful here was adapted freely from Kenneth E. Boulding's fine discussion of the image of m a n in society: 7 A public image is an aggregate of the perceptions shared by a whole people about a particular individual—including not only personal reputation, but location in a surrounding value-laden universe of roles, relationships, and organizations—which are taken together a n d considered collectively.

Using this definition as a framework, an attempt is made to analyze perceptions of Reed Smoot's conduct and activities and the underlying perceptions of him—as a Latter-day Saint, United States senator, Republican party member, businessman, family man, L D S church authority, and Old Guard conservative—that were shared by the people during the three decades he served in Washington.

Today's public images are projected through such a variety of media that future historians will almost inevitably have to depend on the distillations available in public opinion polls. Before radio and television, however, images were formed principally through personal contact and the printed word. Since Smoot's political career was oriented to committee work and behind-the-scenes activity, rather than through personal appearances, his national public image was mainly disseminated by the press. Therefore, a reasonably reliable public image of the senator 7 The Image: Knowledge Press, 1956).

in Life and Society (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Senator Smoot's Public Imaee

385

can be recovered through a formal analysis of material written about

him.

At first glance, newspapers seem the obvious resource on which to base the reconstruction of a public image, and Americans probably gained more ideas and perceptions of Reed Smoot from newspapers than from any other source. Nevertheless, using newspapers presents insurmountable difficulties. Unlike France with Le Monde or Russia with Pravda, newspapers in the United States serve regions rather than the entire nation. Despite the increasing importance of national news services during Smoot's career, it is likely that a public image drawn from major American newspapers would be skewed toward the picture held by people with access to urban dailies. Morever, given the practical necessity of working from adequately indexed newspapers, the image would be skewed even more toward the one projected in New York City.8 Fortunately, the periodical press can be used. Less ephemeral but, during the years when Smoot sat in the Senate, almost as inexpensive, journals and magazines were important vehicles of information and opinion. Many magazines and journals circulated nationally. They summarized, synthesized, and interpreted the news and issues of the day.

Ideas were disseminated that affectedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and reflectedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the public images of national figures. The images of contemporary national figures that presently emerge from the pages of Time, Newsweek, and the Reader's Digest are substantially altered by perceptions gained from the television screen. But in the first third of the century, the images projected in McClures, Cosmopolitan, Colliers, Saturday Evening Post, Harper's, Christian Century, and other American magazines can be assumed to be fairly precise. Since all important American periodicals have been exhaustively, though somewhat erratically, indexed in the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, it proved possible to work out a research design that permitted, if not a complete recovery of Reed Smoot's public image, at least a more exact reconstruction than was previously available.

The research procedure differed from traditional historical methods in several ways and involved three major steps. First, working from the " O n e of these steps was an analysis requiring rank order coding, which demands subjective judgment. It was necessary to include in the research design some means of testing the reliability of the data. To ensure that her own familiarity with Senator Smoot's career and overall public attitudes toward the Mormons had not influenced her ranking decisions, die author arranged to have all of the articles used in the study analyzed independently. This was done by a research assistant. Sherilyn Brandenstein. whose major field is journalism. Employed specifically for this project, this assistant had neither specialized knowledge of Mormonism nor of Senator Smoot's career. T h e choice of such a person was deliberate as the independent analysis was intended to simulate as nearly as possible the sort of respon I the material that might have been made by a typical reader of American periodicals. Comparison ol the results of the independent rankings with those of the author suggests that the study data are reliable since almost 90 percent of the coded ranking were either in perfect agreement or subject only

386

Utah Historical

Quarterly

senator's diaries, general histories of Utah and United States politics, and an overall picture of American attitudes toward the Mormons, the major themes of Smoot's public image were identified and cast in the form of variables with clearly defined categories. Next, a classification scheme developed with these variables was used to assess the contents of all the articles published between 1902 and 1932 that are indexed in the Readers' Guide under Reed Smoot. Going beyond the direct press treatment of the senator, all the articles indexed under Mormons and Mormonism, Utah, and U.S. Congress, Senate, were also examined; 9 and the contents of those that made significant mention of Smoot were coded according to the same classification scheme. And finally, to bring the image into focus, the resulting data were weighted according to the circulation of the magazines in which the articles appeared. 1 0 Each article was classified by type (essay, feature, contemporary newrs, editorial, etc.), publication date, subject matter, and emphasis on Smoot. Each piece was then ranked on a series of variables designed to describe the attitude expressed toward the senator's connection with the Mormon church and the assessment of his political ability and influence.

A few specific questions such as whether the article included a discussion of polygamy, the power of the LDS church hierarchy, the connection between the church and "the trusts," Smoot's business activities, his role as a husband and family man, and his personality were answered; and a judgment was made about whether the interpretive picture of the senator was positive, very positive, neutral (or too fragmentary to be interpretive ), negative, or very negative. T h e data yielded by this classification procedure were used to construct a statistical profile of the senator's image to serve as a basis for across-time comparison. 11 E X T E N T AND CHARACTER OF SMOOT'S P U B L I C

IMAGE

T h e first question is not what perceptions the American people shared about Reed Smoot but whether they shared any. Outside Utah to one-step discrepancy. Actual comparison percentages a r e : perfect agreement, 69.5: one-step discrepancy, 19.1 ; two-step discrepancy, 4.9: more than two-step discrepancy, 5.5.

9 It must be clearly understood that the examination of general articles on the Senate wras limited to this one category.

10 Weighting factors were determined by dividing magazine circulation by the number of households in the U.S. at the time, thus computing the probability any article had of reaching any household; if the chances were 1 in 100 or less, a weighting factor of 1 was assigned, if they were 2 in a 100 a weighting factor of 2 was assigned, etc.

11 No attempt has been made to construct a model of Smoot's image in U t a h â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a more complex task. In addition to Smoot's personal appearances in U t a h as an LDS general authority, his position in the Republican party automatically assured that he would have two images in U t a h , a Democratic image and a Republican image. A statistical study based, as such studies must be, on percentages and averages would be meaningless.

Senator

Smoot's

Public Image

387

the senator's public image seems to be restricted to a perception of him as one of a set of twins named Hawley-Smoot (or Smoot-Hawley, depending on how close one is to the Intermountain West). Was the situation different in the first third of this century? How is one to know?

Two visibility measures were devised that provide a general idea of how conscious of the U t a h senator the Americans of his day were likely to have been. One—intended as an indication of the extent to which he stood out as an individual in the United States Senate—called for a comparison of the number of direct Readers' Guide references to articles written by or focused entirely on Smoot with the number of articles by or about Henry Cabot Lodge, Robert M. La Follette, William E. Borah, and Furnifold M. Simmons. Representing the Republican Old Guard, Republican insurgency, western Republican progressivism, and southern Democratic conservatism respectively, these long-term senators were selected as suitable for this appraisal. The comparison is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1:

VISIBILITY C O M P A R I S O N : S M O O T AND R E P R E S E N T A T I V E SENATORS

Number of References in Readers' Guide Senators

1900-04 1905-09 1910-14 1915-18 1919-21 1922-24 1925-28 1929-32 7

15

9

3

6

6

9

Lodge (1893-1924)

25

18

20

17

20

17*

20

3

La Follette (1906-24)

16

26

37

14

0

92

24*

17**

Borah (1907-40)

0

6

9

9

19

36

63

39

Simmons (1900-30)

1

1

6

5

1

3

1

7

Smoot (1902-32)

24

"year of death * * most of these are about La Follette's son

This method of measurement—based on raw numbers with no control for unusual events such as La Follette's bid for the presidency which generated many articles—furnishes only a crude estimate of visibility. It is nonetheless perfectly obvious that Reed Smoot was not a senatorial superstar. Except for the articles published at the time of the 1902 investigation and those that appeared during the 1929 crash and the subsequent passage of tariff legislation, stories emphasizing the senator's personality were rare. 1 " In comparison with Lodge, La Follette, and 12 Only 11.1 percent of all the articles were coded as feature articles. Weighted by circulation, the proportion increased so that 19.6 percent of the articles that reached the public were feature articles.

388

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Borah, Smoot had a very low public profile, much lower than was indicated by the senator's 1920, 1926, and 1932 reelection strategy, which was built around the image of a political figure so outstanding and influential that the citizens of the state could hardly afford to dispense with the "wonderful leadership" that h a d elevated U t a h to high rank among the states of the Union. 13 However, the preeminence claimed for the senator in Republican campaign literature might not be as bombastic as the visibility comparison suggests. If Smoot's public profile is measured by a different yardstick â&#x20AC;&#x201D;one based on how much significant mention of him is found in the articles indexed under U.S. Congress, Senateâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;more visibility is apparent.

Between 1902 and 1932, a total of 272 articlesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;everything from a serialized version of David G r a h a m Phillips's Treason of the Senate to accountings of debates, filibusters, and voting records were included. More than 18 percent, almost one in five, contained some discussion of Smoot, and 64 percent were focused on the Senate with as much or more emphasis on Smoot as on anyone else. Although Smoot's public profile as a personality separate and distinct from the Senate was fairly low, his image as a senator was plainly visible, at least for a good portion of his career.

As might be expected, when the percentage of articles about the Senate that mention Smoot is treated as an index of his visibility as a senator, the percentages for the early years seem to indicate that he was not fully identified with the Senate until the controversy over seating him was drawing to a close. Thereafter, Smoot's identification as a senator reveals a see-saw pattern of visibility, with peaks that roughly coincide with his reelection campaigns.

Unlike most first-term senators, Reed Smoot did not arrive in Washington without a national public image. T h e new senator from U t a h was a Mormon, and in 1902 a Mormon image was already present in the public mind, formed by nineteenth-century stereotypes and sealed by B. H. Roberts, the polygamous church authority who, just two years earlier, had been denied a seat in the House of Representatives. Therefore, to complete this investigation of Smoot's visibility, a determination of the extent to which this M o r m o n image attached itself to the senator is also necessary.

W h e n Smoot's career is considered as a single unit and all the articles indexed in the Readers Guide under Mormons and Mormonism during " T h e wording is adapted from the 1926 Republican platform. Here and elsewhere, punctuation and verb tense are sometimes altered in quotations adapted for purposes of demonstrating a particular position.

Senator

Smoot's

Public Image FIGURE 2:

389

S M O O T ' S V I S I B I L I T Y AS A SENATOR

Three-year weighted averages of the percentage of articles indexed under Congress, Senate, in the Readers' Guide that contain significant mention of Reed Smoot.

U.S.

1902-32 are examined, it is apparent—since more than one out of four contain at least some mention of the senator—that Smoot's indentification as a Latter-day Saint was stronger than his identification as a senator. Although the 200 articles in this group in no way constitute the complete body of periodical literature on the Mormons published during Smoot's political lifetime, it is reasonable to assume that they can be treated as a representative sample. T h a t the senator is mentioned by name in 27 percent of these articles—and that in a great many of these his is the only name other than Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that is mentioned—is an impressive indication that during the first third of this century Reed Smoot became what might be called the quintessential Mormon.

A public image is a politician's stock-in-trade. Looking at Smoot's career from any angle—the U t a h newspapers, his letters, the diaries— one must conclude that he made skillful use of a favorable version of his national public image in U t a h state politics. A perceptive look at his career leads to the conclusion that Smoot recognized his role as the " m e d i u m " for the M o r m o n message and realized that his image was a matter of crucial concern to Latter-day Saints everywhere. Smoot was the Mormon senator just as Sen. Edward Brooke is the Black senator today.

His efforts to present an image of rectitude must ultimately be viewed within the context of his fulfilling religious obligations as well as in terms of enhancing his personal and political fortunes.

T h e Latter-day Saint identity was not consistently emphasized. As illustrated in Figure 3, his initial identification with Mormonism—an

390

Utah Historical FIGURE 3:

Quarterly

S M O O T ' S V I S I B I L I T Y AS A M O R M O N

%

A/A

50 45 40 35 30 25

/

20 '5

10 1 5 CM o v m co r«. oo o> o TCM n v m co © O O O O O O O r i t t T t t C 7 > O > O > O > O ) O > O > O ) 0 ) O > O > O ) O > O > O )

r - c o a J O T - C N c j ^ m c o h - e o m O i T - t - i - C M O J C N t N e M C M C N C N C M C M W C O 0 ) O » f l > C f t 0 ) 0 I 0 ) 0 ) 0 ) 0 1 C 5 f l ) f l l 9 1 0 )

Three-year weighted averages of the percentage of articles indexed under Mormons and Mormonism in the Readers' Guide tliat contain significant mention of Reed Smoot.

identification underlined from a thousand pulpits—gave way in time. For a lengthy period during the 1920s, Smoot's exposure in the periodical press suggests a very low level of visibility as a Mormon.

Plotted on the same time line (see Figure 4 ) , these two measures reveal a fascinating and useful configuration of relative visibility. T h e L D S identification was decisively ascendant during the first two Senate terms; the legislative role was more evident in the midyears; and raised levels of visibility, both as senator and Mormon, occurred near the end of Smoot's long career.

T h e specific context in which Americans were likely to have become conscious of the U t a h senator can be inferred from the subject matter of the articles. More than half were about the Senate or Smoot's activity as senator. About a third concerned the L D S church in some way, and the remainder fell into miscellaneous categories. T h e emphasis shifted in time, however. Overall, about 30 percent of all the articles used in this study were about tariff, taxes, and finance; but no articles were classified in that category during the senator's first terms, while two-thirds of the articles from his final term were so classified. Also, although articles about Senate personnel, rules, debates, day-by-day activities, and power structure comprised only 15.6 percent of the total, between 1915 and 1927

Senator

Smoot's

Public

391

Image

FIGURE 4 :

RELATIVE VISIBILITY

% 50 x -

45 40 35

//

-

\\ // X

X 1

>1

1 J

-

i i j i i i

\

fi

// X

/ 1 1

i

1

(

30 i

\ J

-J*

* M

\ \

10

I t 1

A\

-X - - -/5

\

»

\

j j

5

\

1

CM

o

CO

o

^

o

in

o

CT>

co o

o cn

CO

o

O)

cn o

i CM

o

5

cn

\\ \

/ //

15

0

- -m

v

\"i \

r

-

H

\

t i

1

25 20

/

1 1

-

T

J \

- X

o>

i CO

O)

Reed Smoot's visibility as a Mormon visibility as a senator (solid line).

,

U5

.; to

h-

i

i

co

o>

\

\

o

CN

5> s

S

(broken

line) compared

<N

1

\f CM CN

CO CM CD

1

1 ,

> CN

CM

co en

CM

i

its

r» CM en

co CN

i O) CM

i O CO

i yCO

with his

(during Smoot's third and fourth Senate terms) almost 40 percent of the articles came under those rubrics. Perhaps most important, from his election to the end of his first term, only some 40 percent of the articles were directly concerned with the L D S church or Smoot's connection to it, while during his second term—after the Senate investigation had been concluded—an astonishing 70 percent of all the articles were about the LDS church a n d / o r Smoot's connection to it. By the end of his career, this had fallen to less than 10 percent, although a fourth of the articles in that final term at least mentioned the fact that Reed Smoot was a Mormon. A summary table of subject matter classifications is presented below.

To summarize: the research strategy used in this study can best be described as conducting an opinion poll in reverse. Contemporary pollsters sample already formed opinions and make generalizations based on the probability that the sample is representative. Since measuring a sample of opinions held in past time is impossible, analyzing the sources from which the opinions had to be derived seems the best possible alternative.

It must be remembered, then, that the following generalizations are not based on the theory of sampling, but on the assumptions 1) that although incomplete, the Readers' Guide is a good reflection of what was published in the periodical press; 2) that the periodical press, during 1902-1932

392

Utah Historical

Quarterly

at least, was a good reflection of what was published in the country; and 3) that, since the probability of the information's having reached the public is taken into account, a reasonably accurate picture of Reed Smoot's public image could be obtained.

FIGURE 5:

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT CLASSIFICATIONS

Subject Articles concerned in some way with LDS Church and Smoofsconnection therewith Contested election Tariff, taxes, finance

Percentages 1902-32 1902-09 1909-15 1915-21 1921-27 1927-33

34.1

44.7

5.6

44.7

70.2

17.1

66.6

2.6

1.0

1.2

3.7

Public lands, censorship, other public issues

3.4

3.7

15.6

Political activities

1.2

Personality, work habits

4.4

Miscellaneous

5.0

7.9

9.1

3.7

Foreign affairs and foreign debt funding

Senate personnel, power structure, rules, day-to-day debates, activities

31.6

1.0 11.9

29.4

33.3

10.5

44.4

1.5

7.4 3.7

2.6 4.5

9.1

34.3

1.0 1.0

13.2

2.0

1.3

8.1

SMOOT'S P U B L I C IMAGE AND I T S C H A N G E ACROSS T I M E

A public image is more than the sum of its parts. Yet, a description of the image must necessarily deal with the separate parts. I n Reed Smoot's case, the overwhelming impression is that the major dimension of his image was power. T h e measurement of alleged power is very difficult, but an attempt was made to assess the extent of influenceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the concomitant of powerâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the U t a h senator was thought to have wielded.

Each article was ranked on a scale from one to five (not at all influential to extremely influential) with regard to Smoot's purported influence within the Republican party and with regard to national politics and foreign policy. T h e results showed so little variability (1.2 and .8 respectively) and such elevated means (4.5 and 4.6 respectively) that an almost universal perception of intense power is indicated.

Senator Smoot's Public Image

393

The perception of power was apparently established in the public mind before the new Utah senator ever left home to go to Washington, and it remained until he was defeated in 1932. Although the power attribute was undisturbed during those thirty years, its sources changed demonstrably. At first the power was not tied to the senator himself; it was inherent in his membership in the LDS apostles quorum, the men who "controlled the Mormon people in all the world."14 Additionally, in 1907, was the power that adhered to LInited States senators who, as every reader of muckraking literature knew, had by "aggrandizement and centralization of power" established an amazing ability to control the nation.15 The conception of Smoot's power increased before his first term expired when it became clear that he had been accepted into the "inner circle," that group of senators who were, in fact if not in name, "the government of the United States."10 About 1910 these earlier perceptions of power were reinforced by the belief that an ominous connection between the Mormon church and the trusts existed and functioned as an additional source of strength for the Utah senator who was just another "boss-made" politician with bosses who "happened to be apostles whose speech was somewhat more Biblical than political."1' After the 1912 Republican convention and, more particularly, after that year's presidential election when Utah cast its vote for Taft, the perception of the sources of the apostle's power shifted. It appeared that the Mormon church and, by extension, the Utah electorate were controlled by Reed Smoot. This subtle turnabout was crucial to the altered conception of the sources of the senator's power in the 1920s.

Some continued to suggest that Smoot's presence in Washington was due to the "willingness of the rank and file of the Mormon Church to vote for a wooden image if it bore the hierarchical seal of grace" 18 or that his influence was rooted in the Republican Old Guard, but as time passed, the senator's power was credited more to his own political sagacity, hard work, and encyclopedic knowledge. He ':oozed statistics and reveled in facts";19 he knew thirty thousand different things about the tariff;20 "he had a more complete knowledge of the details of the business of the U. S. 14

S. E. Wishard, " T h e Mormon Menace," Independent, January 12, 1905, p. 91.

"Criticism of the Senate," Current Literature 40 (1906) : 2 3 1 - 3 3 .

16 T h e description of the Old Guard power structure is found in A. M. Low, "Oligarchy of the Senate," North American Review 174 (1902) : 231-44.

1T " T h e Apostolic Senator from U t a h , " World's Work 5 (1903) : 3159.

18 "Reed Smoot: Tattler Sketch," Nation, August 9, 1917, p. 158.

19 " T h e Seeking Senators," Woman Citizen, May 1926, p. 6.

20 Alfred Pierce Dennis, " T h e Diligent Senator Smoot," World's Work 59 ( 1 9 3 0 ) : 62.

15

394

Utah Historical

Quarterly

than any other one man"; 2 1 and he became, as M a r k Sullivan said, "a kind of head bookkeeper for the nation." 22 Moreover, his commanding position had been reached by hard work, not political chicanery.

Attitudes toward Smoot's power changed during his final years in Washington. W h e n his power was thought to be rooted in an immoral and traitorous religious organization and a venal and corrupt legislative body, the power had been seen as dangerous and evil. As he went down to defeat in 1932, the senator's power, so clearly evidenced in the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, wras again perceived as dangerous, not because he was wicked but because he was mistaken.

T h e difficulty of studying the senator's power image seems insignificant beside the difficulty of measuring changes in the intensity of his political conservatism and determining ways in which perceptions of his political posture changed. T h e trouble lies partly in the subjective nature of definitions of conservatism, but it goes deeper than that. A real person is round and multifaceted; an image is flat, two-dimensional. To be reflected in a public image, differences must be great and clear-cut. A few of the articles studied described Smoot as "very," "extremely," or "unfailingly" conservative; but such explicit descriptions were rare enough that analysis depended on the re-creation of the early twentieth century political atmosphere in the United States, with enough depth and breadth to detect variation. Distinctions in the way Smoot's political stance was perceived undoubtedly existed. But since the senator never stepped outside the "Apostle of Protection" role he assumed during the PayneAldrich Tariff debate 23 and since no significant break in his alliance with the conservative Republican regulars was ever reported, such distinctions were so blurred that trying to reconstruct them proved impossible.

T h e conventional interpretation must stand undisturbed.

If this analysis does not alter the senator's political conservatism image, it does cast doubt on the notion that the picture of his moral character changed across time. Some newspaper accounts treated John Leilich's polygamy charge as verified rather than alleged, giving rise to concern about the senator's virtue, but that aspect of the minister's protest was immediately disputed. T h e image of Smoot's character projected in the periodical press was generous and favorable from the very first. None of the articles considered charged personal involvement in polygamy and almost 20 percent contained positive descriptions of the 21

Mark Sullivan, "Mr. Harding and the Senate," World's Work 41 (1921) : 614-18. " M a r k Sullivan, "Republican Leaders in the Senate," World's Work 42 (1921) : 151-52.

23 The role is fully described in chapter 6 of Professor Merrill's dissertation.

Senator Smoot's Public Image

395

senator's moral character. Nevertheless, the polygamy concept cannot be ignored entirely. It was one of the features of Smoot's public image that changed more than any other: his identification as a Mormon.

The disappearance of polygamy from the active anti-Mormon lexicon was one of the principal factors producing that change.

All of the major dimensions of the senator's public image are so interrelated that isolating the power, political stance, and moral character for separate examination—useful as that tactic has been—is somewhat artificial. The Mormon dimension was anterior to all the others.

It would be, therefore, not only artificial but extremely difficult to apply the same strategy to it. The attitude tov/ard Smoot's connection with the LDS church as expressed in the articles was correlated with the gross positive-neutral-negative interpretive picture of the senator to such a significant extent (.001+) that isolating his identity as a Latter-day Saint from the remainder of his image, even for analytic purposes, is quite impossible.24 Instead, a series of capsule profiles summarizing the senator's image in each of his Senate terms will be drawn.

American attitudes toward the Mormons were generally negative throughout the nineteenth century, but they became less so in the 1890s after the church promised to give up polygamy and relinquish its hold on Utah politics.25 The election of B. H. Roberts—who had ignored the 1890 Manifesto against future plural marriages—to the House of Representatives only two years after statehood was seen as an indication that the LDS church did not intend to keep faith with the American people.

Roberts was not allowed to serve his term in Washington. The election of an LDS apostle to the Senate, coming as it did on the very heels of Roberts's exclusion from the House, was seen as further proof of lack of faith. Most Americans failed to fathom the intricacies of Utah politics that produced the change of political dictation. Yet, all could understand polygamy.26 Consequently, the inevitable opposition to Smoot played upon 24 Multiple regressions of the attitude toward Smoot's connection with the L D S church variable rankings on date and the gross interpretive picture variable rankings on date reveal strikingly similar configurations. Also a stepwise regression carried out with the unweighted data to determine the significant factors that could be used to predict general attitude toward the senator revealed that the attitude toward Smoot's connection with the L D S church variable was the single variable that was significant for this purpose.

25 The change in attitude detected by means of examining the things written about the Mormons may be deceptive since Col. Isaac T r u m b o and his associates "had traveled through the United States and had subsidized the leading newspapers and prevented their making any hostile statements concerning the 'Mormons' " during the crucial period when U t a h statehood was at issue in Washington. See Edward Leo Lyman, "Isaac T r u m b o and the Politics of Statehood," Utah Historical Quarterly 41 (1973) : 131. ™ S George Ellsworth, "Political Developments," in The History of a Valley, ed. Joel E. Ricks and Everett L. Cooley (Logan, U t . : Cache Valley Centennial Commission, 1956), p. 110.

396

Utah Historical

Quarterly

the public's revulsion for the "continuance of polygamous conditions in U t a h . " T h e Salt Lake Ministerial Association's protest against Smoot's seating—which became the source for innumerable petitions—was based almost entirely on the argument that Smoot, as one of the ruling authorities of the M o r m o n church, was guilty of encouraging polygamy. H e might be a m a n of "blameless character," but he "felt no scruples in sitting at the council board and fellowshipping with his seven apostolic brethren who were living in polygamy in violation of the law." 27 During his first term in the Senate, Smoot's identification with the L D S church was almost complete; during those same years the public's perception of Latter-day Saints, influenced greatly by the fight against the polygamist Roberts, was a most negative one. Thus the finding that, between 1902 and 1909, attitudes expressed toward Smoot's connection with the church were unfavorable at least 65 percent of the time was not unexpected. But finding that his initial public image was not predominantly negative was somewhat surprising.

T h e image projected in the periodical press during Smoot's first term can only be fully comprehended when it is understood that it was a double image, one directly reflecting—and abetting—the attack conducted by a variety of groups and churches, and the other, a defensive refraction of that image that changed the direction from negative to positive. About half of the articles analyzed were too matter-of-fact to allow assessment of the writer's intended interpretation of Smoot; but, in the remainder, the statistical picture is neatly balanced between the two images. An overall negative interpretation of an apostle who was unfit for service in the Senate because he was bound by secret oaths to give first allegiance to M o r m o n authorities who were responsible for the continuation of polygamy in U t a h was projected in 26.3 percent of the articles. O n the other hand, 26.4 percent described Smoot as "a m a n of unquestioned purity and integrity of character," 2 8 "a model husband and father, an honest and upright citizen in every respect" who was a "painstaking and conscientious representative of his state." 29 T h e situation changed markedly in the senator's second term, but not in all respects. His connection with the Latter-day Saints was slightly less visible. H e was identified as a M o r m o n in 83.6 percent of the articles down from 89.5 percent during his first term. Attitudes toward his con27 This position is stated in the words of James W. Garner who described the "Case of Senator Smoot and the Mormon C h u r c h " in North American Review, January 4, 1906, pp. 46-58.

28 29

" T h e Smoot Case," Outlook 85 (1907) :495.

Albert J. Hopkins, " T h e Case of Senator Smoot," Independent

62 (1907) :206.

Senator

Smoot's

Public Image

397

nection with the L D S church were also slightly altered. W h e r e there had been negative overtones 65 percent of the time, the figure rose slightly to 67.5 percent. These are negligible differences. However, the shift in the overall interpretive picture of Smoot is astonishing. Instead of the firstterm double image—approximately one-fourth positive, one-half neutral, and one-fourth negative—the second Senate term portrait is so overwhelmingly negative—over 65 percent of the articles projected an overall negative interpretation while only 16.4 percent projected a positive picture-—that there can be no doubt that Smoot's public image between 1909 and 1915 was alarmingly dark. 30 T h e violent journalistic attacks on the L D S church in the 1910s have been treated heretofore as a delayed reaction, but an integral part of the assault on the church occasioned by the Smoot investigation h a d its roots in the remains of Mormon-Gentile political, economic, and religious conflict in Utah. 3 1 T h e same tired arguments, the same examples of political and economic exploitation, the same instances of the "new polygamy," were used as evidence of L D S perfidy; but the intensive analysis required by this research method demonstrates that the attack on the church in Smoot's second term was not classic antl-Mormonism. T h e onslaught came from a different quarter and had roots not found in the context of Mormon history or even within the larger context of M o r m o n - U t a h economics and politics. This new attack was almost an accident of chronology.

Reed Smoot went to the Senate in 1903, the beginning of the muckraking era. Arriving too late to receive more than a single passing mention in Treason of the Senate, Smoot spent his first term unnoticed by the muckrakers. However, after the Payne-Aldrich Tariff debates, the muckrakers looked about to see what could be learned of the U t a h senator.

Commenting on the Smoot case in 1907, an Outlook editor admitted that he h a d not read all the testimony presented before the Senate committee because "life is too short." 32 Judging from the contents of their articles, the muckrakers did not agree; they read the volumes carefully and used the information for a new assault designed to prove that the 30 T h e extremely negative picture is underscored by the fact that in the positive category, of the 16.4 percent, only 4.5 percent were coded as very positive, while in the negative category, 34.3 of the 65.6 percent were coded as very negative. This dark picture did not disturb the assessment of Smoot's influence and political talent. Since these are attributes that can be used for good or ill, the assessment remained high. " L e o n a r d J Arrington Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints 1830-1900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1958), p. 4 0 5 : J a n Shipps, " U t a h Comes of Age Politically: A Study of the State's Politics in the Early Years of the Twentieth Century," Utah Historical Quarterly 35 (1967) :91—111.

32 " T h e Smoot Case," Outlook, p. 495.

398

Utah Historical

Quarterly

M o r m o n church, like Standard Oil and the Cincinnati bosses, endangered American democracy. T h e inflated emphasis on Senator Smoot's power and influence indicates, however, that the muckrakers were as much disturbed by the senator's membership in the "inner circle" in Washington as they were about undemocratic decision-making in Salt Lake.

Generalizing too much is always dangerous, but this analysis suggests that there was a significant difference in the character and purpose of the attack on Smoot during the Senate investigation and the renewed onslaught on the M o r m o n church during his second term. T h e first, for all its roots in the local Mormon-Gentile situation in Utah, was essentially a religious attack whose real target was the LDS church. T h e second, for all its traditional anti-Mormon rhetoric, was essentially a secular attack directed, to a large degree, against Reed Smootâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;again, a subtle but important turnabout. T h e first was mainly carried by evangelical Protestant groups, women's missionary societies, and limited-circulation magazines with a commitment to mainstream religion. T h e second campaign was almost totally conducted by that part of the mass-circulation press that concerned itself more about warts on the body politic. T h e first reached thousands, the second, millions. If the image of Reed Smoot the quintessential M o r m o n can be said to have influenced the way people have thought about L D S church leaders in the twentieth century, then his sad, dark, heavily materialistic, spiritually shallow image from the muckraking era must surely be an important component of the modern American image of the Latter-day Saints.

T h e muckraking era drew to a close as Smoot's second term was ending; and whatever the long-range effect, it seems not to have influenced greatly the senator's public image in his third term. 33 Actually, during these middle years, Smoot's public profile was lower than at any other time. Only 6.9 percent of the articles studied were published between M a r c h 1915 and M a r c h 1921, a group to small to analyze in any meaningful statistical way. Nevertheless, one observes that the Mormon dimension of the image is decidedly different. Less than half of the articles identified the senator as a Latter-day Saint, and of those some 60 percent saw the connection as positive. T h e overall interpretive picture reveals 44 percent still negative, but the unfavorable side of his image seems predicated on his political conservatism rather than his Mormonism.

By the beginning of his fourth term, Smoot's public image h a d become generally positive. These are the years when the ideas about his 33 For attitudes of the muckrakers, see Stanley K. Schultz, " T h e Morality of Politics: the Muckrakers' Vision of Democracy," Journal of American History 52 (1965) : 527-47.

Senator Smoot's Public Image

399

superior political wisdom, hard work, and tremendous knowledge were most fully worked out. His unpopular position on the Teapot Dome matter was offset by the respect he earned on the foreign debt funding commission and on the finance committee. His identity as a Mormon was rarely mentioned as casual information but discussed only when a value judgment was implied; and again, in 60 percent of the cases, the value was positive. No articles were coded as very negative, while over 30 percent were coded as very positiveâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from the senator's point of view an altogether acceptable public portrait.

An even larger number of the articles during Smoot's fifth and final term, 46.5 percent, wrere classified very positive. But it is likely that the most favorable and flattering public image of the senator was projected during his fourth rather than his final term. A counterimage of considerable importance was projected in the late 1920s by journals with influence beyond the number of copies printed, and for that reason the statistical picture developed from the data weighted to take circulation into account is probably misleading.

In an article published in the American Mercury during the 1926 reelection campaign, Nels Anderson, who knew the Mormons well, sketched out his conception of the portrait of the senator in the "Babbitt press," and then he proceeded to demolish it with rapierlike thrusts of ridicule.34 In the following years, several variations on Anderson's "Pontifex Babbitt' appeared in American Mercury, Literary Digest, Nation, and New Republic. The Saturday Evening Post might have felt that the Mormon church should be congratulated if it was responsible for returning a person of Smoot's calibre to the Senate, but Bernard De Voto, N. B. Musser, and their colleagues could only express sympathy for "the thousands of young Mormons who go about the earth seeking to make converts [who] find their efforts fruitful only among people capable of believing that God speaks through Reed Smoot."35 In summary, the senator's public image in the periodical press during his first term was a double one, about equally balanced between positive and negative. In his second term the image was almost unrelievedly negative. During the third, the image itself almost disappeared, only to return in a very positive guise during the fourth term. The highly favorable image continued to be projected in Smoot's final years in Washington, but it was qualified considerably by a negative shadow.

34 !5

"Pontifex Babbitt," American Mercury 9 (1926) : 177-82.

Bernard DeVoto, " T h e Centennial of Mormonism," American

Mercury

19 (1930) : 12.

400

Utah Historical

Quarterly

In this day of sophisticated public relations management, a study of this nature is not complete without some examination of the extent to which an attempt was made to control and shape the image. The answer to such a question is not to be found in the study of the public portrait but in the study of the portrait's subject. Here the answer can be found in the pages of Reed Smoot's diary. Even a cursory reading of this monumental document indicates that, as any good politician has to be, the senator was vitally interested in his public image. He made himself accessible to reporters and journalists, he subscribed to a clipping service and saved all the clippings, he noted press accounts of his activities, and —as in the case of the incident where he put his feet on a table at which the French ambassador sat—he worried when the accounts were unfavorable. One searches in vain for evidence that the senator ever made any serious attempt to manipulate his public image, however. When necessary he protected it as best he could, and he sought to shape it by writing a steady stream of articles. But, in the final analysis, Reed Smoot controlled his public image by living in such a way that his image did not have to be manipulated.

He did work hard: "so tired I can hardly see" was a commonplace notation in the diary. He was devout; no hint of irreverence is found.30 He even cared, as every human-interest story maintained, about the animals in the zoo. He was thrifty, honest, virtuous, and loyal. And if his decisions—especially the decision he made to borrow money from one of the major witnesses at the outset of the Teapot Dome investigation—were not always as wise as the political sagacity dimension of his image implied, the fact remains that—aside from his questionable financial involvement with the oil magnate E. L. Doheny—any comparison between the image Reed Smoot wished to project and the reality of his personal life would be high indeed. ™ It should be noted that although Smoot's diary reveals a general attitude of faith and piety, that attitude is rarely articulated. In view of the senator's ecclesiastical position and the mass and density of his diary, there is an astonishing absence of material of a reflective or spiritual nature.

Deseret's Sons of Toil: A History of the Worker Movements of Territorial Utah, 1852-1896. By J. K E N N E T H DAVIES. (Salt Lake City: Olympus Publishing Company, 1977. 264 p p . $9.95.) ft must be stated at the outset that Professor Davies's study is a pioneer work. H e has recognized the significance of labor in U t a h history and the formulation of an attitude toward unionism within the M o r m o n church.

This book represents the first published study of U t a h labor history, a n d as such should be recognized as an important contribution.

T h e volume is not concerned so m u c h with worker movements as with the historical roots of the issue of the relationship of the M o r m o n church to labor unions. Davies begins with an excellent delineation of fourteen points that would affect that relationship (pp. 2 6 - 2 9 ) . H e then proceeds to investigate M o r m o n guilds, typographers, the Knights of Labor, Robert Gibson Sleater ("the father of the U t a h labor m o v e m e n t " ) , the U t a h Federated Trades and Labor Council, and various other unions. T h e author's goal is to show the processes of "secularization and a c c o m m o d a t i o n " and how such processes resulted in the secularization of the U t a h labor movement. H e shows the movement coming u n d e r the control of n o n - M o r m o n s and inactive church members but "almost no accommodation between the church and unions, as institutions" (p. 2 2 2 ) .

Various points mentioned by Professor Davies are especially significant.

H e discusses how the church's law of consecration links the church principle of "determination of contracts by m u t u a l consent" to a "balance or equilibrium

of power" (p. 19). I n disputes between men and bishops a "council of High Priests" would act as a board of arbitration. T h e implied preference for arbitration in labor disputes, as opposed to strikes, is obvious. A second key observation is the m u t u a l mistrust of M o r m o n s and outsiders (p. 2 1 ) . It became evident in the twentieth century that in many cases the church battled unions as representative of outsiders. Finally, the issue of the open shop and M o r m o n support, as in the case of Deseret News policies (p. 7 9 ) , has present-day implications.

Davies begins to build a good foundation for the discussion of worker movements but falls short of the final product.

A heavy emphasis on typographers precludes, for example, any in-depth study of miners' unions, despite the author's description of the miners as having "the most lively unionism" (p 2 1 2 ) . An excellent opportunity for an investigation of miners' unions and M o r m o n s would have; been a discussion of the 1893 strike in the Tintic M i n i n g District by the Eureka Miners Union, which was directed primarily against the Bullion Beck and C h a m p i o n M i n i n g C o m p a n y .

This firm was directed by Moses T h a t cher, J o h n Beck, William B. Preston, A. E. Hyde, and George Q . C a n n o n â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a l l M o r m o n entrepreneurs on the scene before Jesse Knight. Strikes, basically neglected by Davies, provide an opportunity to view the implementation of labor philosophies.

Utah Historical

402 Pertinent questions could have been raised and pursued by the author. T h e board of trade concept (p. 9 7 ) , a means of "regulating the commerce of producers and consumers," was founded in part by T h a t c h e r . H o w did this idea affect T h a t c h e r as president of a mining company? Also, George Q . C a n n o n was tied to "cooperative-sponsored local production units" (p. 8 2 ) . H o w did this affect his management-labor policies?

Finally, the 1893 strike brought to the fore the vital issue of the utilization of M o r m o n farmers as strikebreakers. Did this experience affect church attitudes toward future activity in time of strikes (e.g., the 1903 C a r b o n County coal miners' strike) ? Such questions are important, especially in dealing with Mormon-labor attitudes.

T h e above are only a few examples of topics neglected by the author. W h a t of the railroad unions? Davies states that U t a h unionism played an "early Turn

Again

Home.

Quarterly

a n d significant role in the development of the American labor m o v e m e n t " (p.

11). With the exception of the typographers, this aspect is not pursued.

W h a t of the role of U t a h miners in the 1893 formation of the Western Federation of Miners?

An 1896 cut-off date for the study, while politically sound, does not suit the flow of labor history. T h e organization of the book is rather choppy, since frequent repetitions leave the reader weary. Perhaps a better editorial effort would have eliminated that element.

I n the final analysis the book is indeed a pioneer effortâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;one long overdue. Its appearance should not, however, discourage other historians from pursuing U t a h ' s labor history, especially workers movements, in the period covered.

P H I L I P F.

NOTARIANNI

Utah State Historical

Society

By HERBERT H A R K E R . (New York: R a n d o m House, 1977. 245

pp. $8.95.)

I have not seen them all; a n d as a m a t t e r of fact there are precious few to see. Except for Nephi Anderson's Added Upon ( 1 8 9 8 ) , I failed to find a single M o r m o n novel in the well-stocked bookcase supplying the literary needs of the local Saints at the Redwood City meetinghouse. T h e novel is indeed a rare art form within M o r m o n culture.

So we have to go outside for examples of M o r m o n novels written from the inside, and they are scarce. T a k e away Vardis Fisher's Children of God, Virginia Sorenson's A Little Lower than the Angels, Paul Bailey's For Time and All Eternity, M a u r i n e Whipple's The Giant Joshua, Ardyth Kennelly's The Peaceable Kingdom, a n d a scattered handful of writers such as R i c h a r d Scowcroft and Jonreed Lauritzen w h o have worked this vein, and w h a t have we got left in this type of regional literature?

Well, happily there is one m o r e to a d d to this small but distinguished group. It is a novel called Turn Again Home, a n d its author, Herbert Harker, knows his craft. H e can write, and superbly well. As a fellow scribbler, watching the wheels go round, I h a d to admire the deft presentation, the style, the pace, the beautifully spare dialogue, his ability to slip effortlessly in and out of flashbacks, his mastery of the storyteller's art. This is only his second book, and I don't know where he learned how to write, but he knows how.

Not that the book is without flaw.

T h a t would be too m u c h to ask of any author, not excepting myself. I n an early scene there is a family gathering for Alma Roseman's seventy-seventh birthday, and Hickory Jack, the first Gentile we encounter, arrives. " C a r e for a piece of cake?" Alma said. " I ' d prefer whiskey."

403

Book Reviews and Notices "Sorry. No whiskey."

Hickory Jack hooted. "You Mormons don't even know how to celebrate a birthday. No wonder you're such a sourlookin' lot."

Well, that almost finished it for me.

I must admit that I am up to here with the self-righteous dietary morality characterizing too much of our Mormon literature. I almost quit reading right there; however, I kept on to see if it got any worse.

Happily, except for this minor— and perhaps almost obligatory—blooper, there were remarkably few others.

Harker accepts Mormonism simply as part of the environment for his story.

He does not endlessly explain it. (Praise be!) He does not try to sell it. He does not equate character and virtue with church activity. He takes it in stride, as would a Jewish or Catholic author writing about his people. And yet the environment is not used merely as an interesting setting. The story is based on a uniquely Mormon problem.

This is genuine regional literature, a book of the sort I have been bemoaning the lack of for, lo, these many years.

And what is the story? It is a simple situation: After Alma Roseman's birthday party the old man rides off on the family present to him, a beautiful horse, and vanishes. The story concerns the search by a son, Jared, for his father.

O n the last page, the mystery is solved.

But this is not a whodunit. It is a novel of pioneer Canada. Aside from the thread of the plot, the book throbs with the lifeblood of people you care for. who dance and love and find joy and heartbreak in the grim struggle against the cruel and capricious Canadian weather. It is also the search by Jared to find himself, as well as his father.

I won't spoil a good story by telling you too much. If you want a good novel, beautifully written, enjoy, enjoy.

SAMUEL W.

Redwood

City,

TAYLOR

California

Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American Legend and a Monumental Crime.

By WILLIAM W I S E . (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1976. 317 pp. $11.95.)

The author justifies his study with a quote from Morris Cohen: " I n the end, there is no way in which people can live together decently unless each individual group realizes that the whole of truth and virtue is not exclusively in its possession. This is a hard lesson to learn, but without it there can be no humane civilization" (p. 269).

T h e Mountain Meadow Massacre as a fact of history deserves both intensive and extensive historical research and comment. Since its occurrence during that unhappy week of September 6-11, 1857, literally hundreds of people have written about it, beginning with John D. Lee in his "official report" to Gov. Brigham Young in November 1857.

However, too few writers have brought to the study careful, candid,

and thorough scholarship. Rather, most have sought on the one hand to condemn the Mormon church and Mormon people, or on the other to apologize for and excuse them. The primary exception to this pattern of research has been the monumental works of Juanita Brooks— The Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950) and John Doyle Lee (1961).

T h e present book by William Wise, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, attempts to dispose of Mrs. Brooks's work in footnote comments. Wise maintains that she had two objectives: 1) to prove that John D. Lee was not the sole or even primary Mormon to figure in the massacre, and 2) that the Mormon church leaders did not conspire to cause the massacre. Historians will argue with Wise's analysis of Mrs. Brooks's work.

404 But perhaps he is to be criticized most severely for using much of her detailed information in coming to his own conclusions with only minimal acknowledgement. F u r t h e r criticism may be m a d e of Wise's use of other sources, not because he fails to acknowledge them, nor even because m a n y are secondary sources, but rather because he uses t h e m with little discrimination.

However, in his defense, it may be noted that there are few contemporary, primary historical sources dealing directly with the massacre that have been available to scholars. Court records, depositions, and reminiscenses represent testimony many years after the fact.

Government documents, reports of 1859

by I n d i a n Agent Forney and J u d g e Cradlebaugh, are some of the records more contemporary to the event itself.

Wise has m a d e good use of these official records and of the extensive New York Times correspondence files, but unfortunately his research did not take him into the holdings in the L D S church archives for whatever may be there.

M r . Wise's strengths come from his asking the right historical questions. H e correctly observes that more than a h u n dred men, women, and children, American citizens primarily from the state of Arkansas, were massacred in U t a h Territory, then an official p a r t of the United States, by a combined force of M o r m o n s (American citizens) and I n dians. At that time Brigham Y o u n g was not only head of the M o r m o n church but also governor in fact of the territory and the government's official representative to the Indians of the area. Wise identifies two fundamental questions: 1) Why did they d o i t ? and 2) W h y was investigation and prosecution so long in coming? In his discussion of these questions, the author presents a review of M o r m o n - g o v e r n m e n t attitudes and relationships from the early 1830s to the late 1870s.

Wise's thesis claims that M o r m o n s early in their history developed an at-

Utah Historical

Quarterly

titude of lawlessness based on their concept of higher law. As God's chosen people with his anointed prophets, Mormons believed they were not subject to the laws of the land nor to democratic processes when these contradicted the laws of God. T o support his thesis Wise cites such issues as the "Danites" in Alissouri, the " m u r d e r " of Sheriff Worrell in Nauvoo, the expulsion of territorial officials from U t a h , the Gunnison Massacre, the Parish-Potter murders in Springville, etc. H e concludes that by the summer of 1857, M o r m o n s believed the United States government to be their enemy, that they were not accountable to its unrighteous laws a n d / o r officials.

Further, their own exaltation in heaven and salvation in Zion depended upon the strictest obedience to the church leaders and the priesthood. M o r m o n sinners were to be punished, as were their enemies, not for justice alone but for their eternal welfare as well.

Wise treats the F a n c h e r party with greater understanding, perhaps because this is the major area of his inquiry in which primary sources were consulted.

In this research Wise makes some important historical contributions. M e m bers of the party are shown to be wellto-do, responsible families related through marriage who generally had known each other for years. U n d e r normal conditions the well-organized Fancher train would have arrived in the Stockton, California, area with only minor incidents. However, 1857 was a fateful year in U t a h Territory. An army had been ordered to U t a h and Brigham Young had elected to resist. Into this supercharged milieu came the F a n c h e r train in early August.

Wise states explicitly that Y o u n g decided to destroy the wagon train and confiscate its wealth ($75,000). T h e site selected for the massacre was remote M o u n t a i n M e a d o w in southern U t a h .

Charles C. Rich was sent to meet with leaders of the F a n c h e r train while it was camped along the banks of the J o r d a n

Book Reviews and Notices River to convince them to take the southern route. ( M o r m o n leaders have always maintained that Apostle Rich advised the train to go north. In this regard it is interesting to note that only M o r m o n writers, specifically B. H. Roberts and Orson F. Whitney, report that the whole train went north nearly to Brigham City before turning around and heading south.) Wise uses the report of M a l i n d a Cameron Scott, who had traveled to U t a h with the train and whose parents perished in the massacre, to substantiate his claim. She survived, since her husband had insisted on taking the northern route.

Wise continues: Young's plan called for an " I n d i a n massacre," which J o h n D. Lee was to lead. George A. Smith was sent south to prepare the people for the task, which meant that should the Indians fail, the Mormons must d o the job. William D a m e , Isaac Haight, and Lee were simply following "authority."

Wise argues further that there were no "Missouri Wildcats" in the party, and that the Fancher train behaved itself well. T o have done differently in the face of hostile Mormons would have been ridiculous. H e maintains that reports critical of the Fancher party were fabricated later to cover M o r m o n crimes.

H e also believes that James Haslam was sent north on M o n d a y evening (September 7) only after the initial I n d i a n attack h a d failed. T h e question was not whether the wagon train should be destroyed (which was Brigham's original plan) but whether or not Mormons should help do it. T h e y and the Indians consummated the massacre Friday morning, September 11.

Only the uninformed or strongly biased reader will be satisfied with Wise's explanation of question n u m b e r one, why was the wagon train massacred ? For $75,000? Because Brigham Young was a power hungry religious fanatic? T h e issues involved were simply too complex to admit to a simple conspiratorial interpretation of history.

405 I n dealing with his second question, Wise claims that J o h n D . Lee reported the massacre in full to Brigham Y o u n g within three weeks of the event. At that time Lee was assured by Young that in this action he and other Mormons had not sinned. Lee was told to return south and submit a report laying the blame solely on the Indians. T h a t became the "official" account and one to which M o r m o n s held for years.

Wise believes M o r m o n friend Col. T h o m a s L. K a n e used his political influence to have Alfred C u m m i n g a p pointed as territorial governor, convinced that Cumming's naive sympathy could be bent to the M o r m o n s ' cause.

With him as governor, Brigham Young could still retain most of his power. It was on this basis that Young agreed to negotiations early in 1858. K a n e ' s judgment was confirmed, since the new governor refused to "prosecute" any Mormons for the M o u n t a i n M e a d o w Massacre, declaring that President Buchanan's p a r d o n had covered all crimes.

Later, when Judge J o h n Cradlebaugh began his investigation (1859) into the massacre, he employed federal troops from C a m p Floyd to protect his coLirt and witnesses. Once again it was K a n e who persuaded Buchanan to prohibit judicial use of the army, arguing that only the governor could deploy troops in the territory. As C u m m i n g wanted no prosecution, Cradlebaugh's investigation was effectively ended.

T h e Civil W a r gave Brigham Y o u n g a n d the Mormons another reprieve.

However, with the coming of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 the massacre again became a much-discussed topic. Public pressure brought M o r m o n action. Lee was excommunicated in October 1870, tried in 1875 and again in 1876, to become the scapegoat for the whole M o r m o n church and its leader w h o m he so faithfully had served.

O n the second question, Wise suggests some new explanations for the "cover u p " and the role of Colonel K a n e

Utah Historical

406 in it. His sharpest challenge is directed at M o r m o n church leaders who, he maintains, covered u p the massacre a n d the M o r m o n s ' p a r t in it from the beginning. Further, they continue to cover u p a fact of history not disputed by serious historians. Perhaps it is these kinds of actions from an institution that proclaims itself to be God's church with the highest of moral standards that promotes a credibility gap through which Wise, and others, herd historical d a t a somewhat carelessly and even irresponsibly at times, but with telling impact.

It is easy to criticize Wise's scholarship, yet when one reads the masses of literature available on the subject of the M o u n t a i n M e a d o w Massacre, he is struck as m u c h with the contradictory n a t u r e of m u c h of the evidence and testimony as with the almost total absence of contemporary data. For example, who records in a diary u n d e r a date before the massacre that he had met the wagon train a n d that its m e m Hour of Trial: The Conservation

By G. M I C H A E L M C C A R T H Y .

X v i + 327 p p . $12.50.)

Quarterly

bers were in fact the rowdies they were later reported to be? W h y are pages in major diaries covering these dates missing, often torn out? C a n a running spring be poisoned? Did the whole train go north before turning south?

If so, why the change? W h y did the M o r m o n s in southern U t a h decide that the wagon train should be destroyed even after it had passed through their settlements? W h o decided? W h o had the authority to make that decision?

Why would J o h n D. Lee have lied to Brigham Young about the massacre?

T h e "evidence" available is contradictory. Wise has used it to answer all of the above questions, and in so doing he has indicted Mormonism and Brigham Young.

For this reviewer the jury is still seated. Yes, why did it h a p p e n ? H o p e fully, even yet, primary historical data can be uncovered to get at the facts.

MELVIN T.

Utah State Historical

SMITH

Society

Conflict in Colorado and the West, 1891-1907. ( N o r m a n : University of O k l a h o m a Press, 1977.

Colorado, like all western states, witnessed at the t u r n of the century a clash between her pioneer tradition, which praised the utilization of natural resources, and conservation, which w a r n e d against the abuse of resources. This conflict, this " h o u r of trial," is the subject of M c C a r t h y ' s study, which begins with the establishment of the first forest reserves in 1891 a n d concludes with the demise of anticonservationism in 1907.

Colorado anticonservationists saw in federal administration of Colorado land, particularly that of the T h e o d o r e R o o sevelt administration, the making of executive tyranny. Until 1907 the power to create forest reserves, for example, was wielded by the president alone. I n the first eight m o n t h s of 1905 Roosevelt set aside nearly nine million acres of

Colorado, alarming m a n y westerners already fearful of eastern a n d federal domination. F u r t h e r m o r e , many Coloradoans suspected that federal administration of the forest reserves a n d leasing of the public domain would work to the benefit of large interestsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;big cattlemen, big lumbermen, big mining interests. According to M c C a r t h y , this fear was justified to some extent, and similar charges are today leveled against federal administrators. For their part, Coloradoans who defended federal policies did so largely for practical reasons.

Plains dwellers, particularly those in Denver, wanted protection of the watersheds. M a n y cattlemen were justifiably concerned about the destruction of the range. M a n y local boosters, even in the largely anticonservationist Western

407

Book Reviews and Notices Slope, realized that abuse of adjoining natural resources would be detrimental to the local economy. C a u g h t between conservationists and anticonservationists were the understaffed and beleaguered forest rangers, forced to resort at times to O l d West-style law enforcement in their effort to keep pioneers off the reserves.

M c C a r t h y chronicles these events deftly and his speculations as to the larger m e a n i n g of the Colorado conflict are interesting and insightful. Simply stated, he believes that events in Color a d o were typical of the West because the same essential economic interests and ideas prevailed throughout. Perhaps his most important contribution to our understanding of western history is his suggestion that the conservation battle grew naturally out of the circumstances of western life. Both the pioneer and the conservationist responded log-

Carthage

Conspiracy:

ically to those circumstances a n d their actions and ideas influence the shape of things today. " T h e pioneer a n d the preserver," M c C a r t h y writes, "both left their legacies to Colorado and the West."

Some criticisms: M c C a r t h y ' s effort to p u t Colorado events into national perspective leads sometimes, as in the chapter "Roosevelt and Pinchot," to repetition of textbookish facts. T h e closing chapter which compares the earlier conservation conflict with that facing Governor L a m m today is interesting b u t out of place. Finally, some of the m a n y photographs that illustrate the book are poorly reproduced, being in some cases reprints of newspaper reprints. Additional maps would have been useful, particularly to the non-Coloradoan reader.

STEPHEN

University

The Trial of the Accused

MIKESELL

of California,

Assassins of Joseph Smith.

Davis

By D A L L I N

H . O A K S a n d M A R V I N S. H I L L . ( U r b a n a : University of Illinois Press, 1975. X i v 4-

249 p p . $7.95.)

Forty-three years after his acquittal for the m u r d e r of Joseph Smith, T h o m a s C. Sharp was asked if he h a d killed the M o r m o n prophet. His only response was, "Well, the Jury said n o t . " I n a thorough examination of the trial of five men accused of m u r d e r i n g Joseph Smith at Carthage, Illinois, on J u n e 27, 1844, Dallin H . Oaks, president of Brigh a m Y o u n g University, and M a r v i n S. Hill, professor of history at the same institution, provide a candid a n d insightful account of one of the most significant events in M o r m o n and legal history. T h e authors' m a i n concern is not the guilt or innocence of the accused b u t why M o r m o n leaders were unwilling to support prosecution efforts to secure conviction of those deemed responsible for the m u r d e r of their revered leader a n d how, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, the

jury could quickly find the five defend a r t s not guilty.

T h e answer to these two questions is found in the allegiance by both parties to a "higher l a w " that transcended the written laws of the state a n d nation.

For Mormons, the higher law was the divine revelations given by God through his spokesman the prophet a n d the conviction that history was simply the unfolding of God's will. For the antiM o r m o n s the higher law was the right of self-preservation a n d popular sovereignty. T h e m a n n e r in which the accused were exonerated was, as the authors point out in their conclusion, similar to the refusal of M o r m o n jurors to convict their coreligionists during the polygamy trials in U t a h a n d of sympathetic jurors d u i i n g the 1920s to convict persons accused of violating the Prohibition law.

Carthage Conspiracy serves not only

408 the scholar as it develops the historical significance of the trial but also the layman through a well-written n a r r a tive containing as m u c h suspense and color as an imaginative work of fiction.

T h e early chapters explain the context in which the m u r d e r and trial occurred, noting the depth of the political conflict between M o r m o n and a n t i - M o r m o n factions, the dilemma for Gov. T h o m a s Ford a n d prosecutor Josiah L a m b o r n as they were required by law to conduct a trial the anti-Mormons did not w a n t and M o r m o n s refused to support, and the n a t u r e of judicial practices t h a t offered no restraint on the appeal to higher law. T h e story of the trial is presented with a careful analysis of each witness's testimony as well as the weaknesses and strengths of the prosecution and defense strategies.

Utah Historical

Quarterly

T h e sources on which the account is based are, according to the authors, "surprisingly diverse and richly detailed." T h e text is carefully footnoted and the bibliographical discussion at the end of the book impressively substantiates the authors' assessment of the sources. Finally, although the book is a valuable contribution to American and M o r m o n historical literature, it is also significant as a standard for other Mormon scholars to follow in treating impartially and analytically those historical topics that at times are distorted and exaggerated in a misuse of history to promote the faith.

A. K E N T

POWELL

Utah State Historical

Society

Joseph Smith: The First Mormon. By D O N N A H I L L . (Garden City, N . Y. day & Company, Inc., 1977. Xxii + 527 p p . $12.50.)

Since its publication in 1945 F a w n Brodie's No Man Knows My History has been recognized as the best biography of Joseph Smith that has been produced. Even historians of the M o r mon persuasion, who have usually regarded it as a hostile biography, have had to agree. Faithful Mormons have longed for the day when a biography would a p p e a r that they could honestly regard as superior in quality a n d yet sympathetic to the prophet. Finally, thirty-two years after Brodie's, appears a biography that many M o r m o n historians will acclaim as just that. Written by a believing M o r m o n w h o views Smith "as an inspired spiritual leader" (p. ix) and published by a well known secular publisher, Joseph Smith: The First Mormon is well written, thorough in the sense that it covers the prophet's life with considerable detail, and objective in intent.

This reviewer, however, is one M o r monâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;albeit a Reorganized M o r m o n â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Double-

who believes that Ms. Hill has not surpassed Ms. Brodie. Although Hill strives for objectivity, there are simply too many instances where her reverence for the prophet and his work flaws her biography.

T h e author's bias shows when she refers to Joseph Smith's claimed revelations in a matter-of-fact way, apparently assuming that he was divinely inspired as alleged. But the historian cannot, as a historian, conclude that a revelation came from God. T h e r e is no way to historically prove or disprove that the words that fell from Smith's lips were God's rather than Smith's. Indeed, there is no way to prove or disprove that God exists. We all live by certain assumptions of faith. As a faithful M o r m o n Ms. Hill is entitled to assume that Smith was divinely inspired, but as a historian she should try to avoid such assumptions.

H e r account of M a r t i n Harris's desire to show the Book of M o r m o n m a n u script to Mrs. Harris will illustrate. Hill

Book Reviews and Notices writes: "Joseph inquired of the Lord if this might be done, but met refusal" (p.

8 1 ) . W h e n the 116 pages were shown to Mrs. Harris anyway and turned u p missing, a masterful way out of the predicament was articulated in a revelation. W h e t h e r the solution was Smith's idea or God's is not possible to answer, but Hill seems to assume that God should get the credit, as "Joseph was shown a means to outwit t h e m " (p. 8 3 ) .

T h e a u t h o r seems to accept uncritically some of the stories of miracles performed by Smith. Some of these miracle stories—e.g., the healing of Newel Whitney and the death of selfish Sylvester Smith's horse (pp. 148, 1 7 2 ) — a r e not footnoted, suggesting the possibility t h a t Hill has simply repeated miracle stories that have circulated by oral tradition among faithful M o r m o n s . At any rate, the historian ought to question the reliability of such tales.

T h e r e is a tendency for the author to portray Smith as noble a n d unselfish and his enemies as m e a n and vicious.

Yet this unselfish m a n assumed for himself incredible power, including the exclusive right to speak for God. As for the M o r m o n s ' conflict with their neighbors in various localities, the neighbors "always ended u p by behaving hysterically" (pp. 3 6 2 - 3 6 3 ) . T h e rumors in Missouri that the M o r m o n s regarded their neighbor's land as their inheritance Hill seems to regard as unfair. Yet she does not take note of the 1831 revelation of Smith's in which the Lord allegedly says, " I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles u n t o my people which are of the house of Israel." T h e r e are other statements in earlier revelations that would also tend to upset their nonM o r m o n neighbors.

T h e author appears to judge Mormons according to their loyalty to Smith.

Those w h o remained consistently loyal to him tend to be revered while those who doubted or defected—either temporarily or permanently—are cast in a less favorable light.

409 A lack of objectivity can be detected in Hill's handling of some of the more sensitive aspects of Smith's life. Wesley Walters has written noteworthy articles challenging orthodox M o r m o n accounts of Smith's first vision and of his 1826 Bainbridge trial. Yet Hill casually dismisses Walters's thesis of the first vision, without examining i m p o r t a n t parts of his analysis, a n d she ignores Walters's article on the Bainbridge trial. I n both cases she relies heavily on the orthodox accounts of the subjects in Brigham Young University Studies.

Ms. Hill's bias is also visible in what she amits. O n e question raised in almost any initial inquiry into the story of the origin of the Book of M o r m o n is: W h a t h a p p e n e d to the plates? T h e reader needs to know the answer to this question to understand the discussion of the controversy with Professor A n t h o n . If the resolution of this question is in the book, this reviewer could not find it.

Some other questions that should have been addressed, in this reviewer's opinion, a r e : H o w did a church that originated in opposition to priestcraft become, in Smith's lifetime, a very priestly, hierarchical institution? After I n d e p e n dence, Missouri, was selected as Zion, why was Smith unwilling to live there a n d why did he m a k e unfavorable comparisons between Independence and K i r t l a n d (p. 135) ? And finally, why was the mission to the Indians a failure?

O n the difficult question of polygamy, Hill commendably refuses to m a k e any speculative generalizations about Joseph Smith's motivations. Yet she draws highly speculative conclusions about E m m a Smith's motivations for opposing polygamy.

M s . Hill is very timid in her treatment of ihe Book of A b r a h a m , refusing to state the obvious—that as a translator, Smith erred. She does not raise the natural question: If Smith erred in his translation of the Book of A b r a h a m , w h a t does this say, if anything, about his translation of the Book of M o r m o n ?

410 T h e chapter on Smith's 1844 candidacy for president is disappointing, a n d in her chapter on Blacks in the church Hill makes an unconvincing a t t e m p t to portray Smith as one w h o did not share the racist assumptions of his society. Although she footnotes Lester Bush's 1973 Dialogue article, this reviewer wonders if she read it carefully.

It seems to this reviewer that Hill relied too heavily on the History of the Church, especially when the History reprinted documents that should have been examined in the original, or when the History simply recited accounts calculated to inspire faith but of questionable reliability. Hill also tends to accept Lucy Smith's history of the Smith family too uncritically. F a w n Brodie is frequently used, but Ms. Hill seems to share the too-common M o r m o n desire to avoid mentioning Brodie's biography.

B. H. Roberts and even an obscure 1904 writer, Charles W. Brown, are mentioned, but Hill draws as little attention to Brodie as possible, never mentioning her in the body of the book. Hill's attitude toward Brodie is quite clear in her annotated bibliography, where she in-

Utah Historical

Quarterly

correctly states that Brodie's book is "based largely u p o n anti-Mormon sources" a n d "is in the long tradition of the M o r m o n expose" (p. 5 0 0 ) .

An occasional error mars the work.

T h e Pearl of Great Price was not p u b lished in N a u v o o in 1842 (p. 193). T h e United States Constitution did not in Smith's day guarantee every m a n "the right to worship God according to his own conscience" (p. 114). M a r t i n V a n Buren was not president in 1843 (p.

374).

Hill's book has been aided by the fact that she has been able to consult m a n y works published since 1945 or not available to Brodie at that time. However, despite this advantage, it is not a p p a r e n t to this reviewer that the availability of recent research has led to a superior biography. Probably Hill's primary contribution lies in the fact t h a t she has written a reasonably competent biography of Smith that—unlike Brodie's— will be read by orthodox Mormons.

WILLIAM D.

RUSSELL

Graceland College Lamoni, Iowa

Geronimo: The Man, His Time, His Place. By ANGIE D E B O . ( N o r m a n : University of O k l a h o m a Press, 1976. X x + 480 p p . $14.95.)

Geronimo! Few names in the annals of American I n d i a n history are as well known. I t was this Chiricahua Apache whose final surrender in 1886 for all practical purposes brought to a close more t h a n three a n d a half centuries of warfare between I n d i a n a n d white m a n on the N o r t h American continent.

H e has been the inspiration for at least four earlier biographies and "as told t o " autobiographies as well as nearly countless books and articles relating to his exploits as one of the greatest guerrillas the world has ever seen.

W h a t historian Angie Debo has done has been to pull together a n d to synthesize an enormous quantity of p u b -

lished, unpublished, a n d oral historical data. O n e suspects this is the definitive work of its kind about Geronimo, an effort that will never need to be repeated — a l t h o u g h it will surprise no one if it is. T h e r e are enough gaps in the available information, to say nothing of materials sufficiently equivocal to allow for interpretations other than those of Debo, t h a t articles concerning Geronimo will continue to a p p e a r in historical journals. Someone is always finding something new. And the reputation of Geronimo is such t h a t popular writing about him is likely never to end.

W h a t the book is not, however, is a study of Geronimo from either an

411

Book Reviews and Notices Apache or Mexican point of view. At this late date, an Apache biography of Geronimo would probably have little to distinguish it from one written by a sympathetic non-Indian, which is what I perceive Angie Debo to be. In the Mexican case, however, one is on different ground. The full Mexican version of late nineteenth-century warfare with Apaches has yet to be told. And the documentation is there, in state and regional archives in Chihuahua and Sonora and, no doubt, in Mexico City as well. If there is an unturned stone remaining in the life of Geronimo, this is it.

Although there appears to be little that is basically new and heretofore

unknown in Debo's masterful synthesis, the portions I personally found to be the most interesting are those that deal with Geronimo's life from the time of his final surrender in 1886 until his death in Oklahoma in 1909. It is here that he comes into full focus as a human being, giving substance to the shadow of legend. H e seems to have been kind, cruel, thrifty, generous, admired, hated, respected, feared, an entrepreneur and a rascal. His nature was characterized by ambivalence and contradiction. H e was, in short, a man.

BERNARD L.

University of Arizona,

FONTANA

Tucson

Under the Cottonwoods and Other Mormon Stories. By DOUGLAS H. THAYER. (Provo, Ut.: Frankson Books, 1977. 229 pp. $6.00.)

Frequently the title indicates what one may expect to find in a work. Under the Cottonwoods suggests to me stories of reflection or recall of times past and perhaps a few items of Mormon folklore. There are a few instances of the latter, such as the story of the seagulls and several tales extolling protective powers associated with the wearing of temple garments. Otherwise, the folkloristic elements are those that become part and parcel of religion in general, i.e., faith and belief in certain principles of behavior from which the standards of a group are determined.

There is little doubt that the author was writing for an in-group that believes in Mormonism as the only way to salvation. A non-Mormon would not be particularly turned on by the material other than to conclude that Mormons, in general, are pretty smug and confident in their closed circle.

There are ten stories. In all of these Professor Thayer's unique art of storytelling sets a particular pattern of uncomplicated syntax, simple vocabulary, and crisp and concise sentence structure

that permits his use of flashback to work efficiently.

The characters are of two main types: church members before and after their missions who are faced with problems and the old guardâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;grandparents and grea:-grandparents who are completely good, clean, and honest. The old guard built the faith into the right and only way of life. It rarely, if ever, comes up short. Modern times have so many diversions with which to cope that the yourger generations may and do falter.

T h e varied experiences of Thayer's characters are decidedly related to his own. One feels strongly that he lived what he wrote. Thus the overall impression is one of an autobiographical foray into the world of experience. He leaves us guessing as to where fact leaves off and fiction begins or vice versa.

Every story is markedly didactic in nature. A lesson of one sort or another is to be derived from each. The type of ending, in nearly all instances, is a device called the open-end in which no final solution is drawn for the reader but he is left instead to arrive at his own logical

412

Utah Historical

Quarterly

conclusion. Nevertheless, hints expressed throughout the stoiy should lead, more or less, to a basic religious conclusion.

This, almost without exception, would be the thorough support of M o r m o n doctrine, philosophy, a n d principles, i.e., "live the gospel in its fullness."

T h e following passages exemplify this a n d become the crux a n d purpose of the work. I n " Z a r a h e m l a , " Jared's grandmother sums things u p thusly, " W e all have great reason to be grateful. We have food to eat, clothes to wear, a good roof over o u r h e a d s ; we have the iron rod of the gospel to cling to, a n d we have the family." And in " I n d i a n Hills" the a u t h o r says of Reed, " H e needed to know all of the scriptures, to be more t h a n only good. All meaning h a d to be religious, finally."

Geographically speaking, the overall action is centered around the Provo area. F o r those familiar with the place names of this region some happenings and events m a y conjure u p a nostalgic feeling or two.

T h e story of " Z a r a h e m l a , " the town n a m e d after the largest a n d best-known city in the Book of M o r m o n , has possible historical interest. I t is an attempt, fact or fiction, to found a typical Mormon settlement, b u t was doomed from the start d u e mostly to its location at the desert's edge. After the settlement's demise, an old landmark estate there, bearing all sorts of nostalgic memories for Jared, is to be purchased by a prosperous M o r m o n doctor from Los Angeles as a place of retirement. T h e price is good a n d Jared decides to sell.

T h e money, of course, will be used to further the work of the Lord. Jared's sons will be financed on missions; they will later attend college to obtain a profession. "All meaning h a d to be religious, finally."

T h e book is well a n d clearly printed.

T h e r e are very few typographical errors.

It is a work definitely for the M o r m o n in-group.

Nevada:

U t a h , the straitlaced M o r m o n society), the two nevertheless share common ground. Both Great Basin states have similar landscapes, both have a Morm o n heritage, the livelihoods of the inhabitants are historically alike. M r .

Laxalt discusses this a n d more using the colorful, colloquial language of N e vadans a n d telling m u c h about the people and state by use of their own stories and incidents in their lives.

A History.

By R O B E R T LAXALT.

T h e States a n d the Nation Series.

(New York a n d Nashville, T e n n . : W. W. N o r t o n a n d C o m p a n y a n d the American Association for State a n d Local History, 1977. X i + 146 p p . $8.95.)

Although on the face of it N e v a d a a n d U t a h present opposite images to the world (Nevada, the "sin state," a n d

STUART A.

GALLACHER

Salt Lake

City

413

Book Reviews and Notices Wyoming: A History. By T . A. L A R S O N .

T h e States a n d t h e Nation Series.

(New York a n d Nashville, T e n n . : W. W . N o r t o n a n d C o m p a n y a n d the American Association for State a n d Local History, 1977. I x + 198 p p . $8.95.)

Another neighbor state of U t a h , Wyoming shares characteristics with its companion b u t also has its o w n distinctive personality. Fort Bridger, Wyoming, was the site of an early controversyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;over land a n d Indian relationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;between a Wyoming m o u n t a i n m a n , J i m Bridger, and t h e M o r m o n s in Salt Lake City led

by Brigham Young. T h e author's discussion of t h e entanglement tells a great deal about early Wyoming a n d U t a h .

W o m a n suffrage takes a complete chapter in D r . Larson's book. Both U t a h and Wyoming legislated the female vote in their states prior to t h e federal government's decision to do so, and this characteristic has shaped attitudes of t h e inhabitants. T o a n extent, both states are cowboy territories although Wyoming, deservedly, is more noted for these earthy individuals. And the two areas, although not containing the obvious resources of a state like California, have recently become energy sources for the nation. I t will b e interesting to note the directions of development of the two regions, given the similarities a n d differences in their histories.

The

American

Farm:

History.

By

RICHARD

CONRAT.

A

MAISIE

Directory Utah.

of Museums Compiled

and Galleries in a n d edited by

M I C H A E L L. PERRY a n d R I C H A R D E.

KIBBEY. (Salt Lake City: U t a h State Division of Fine Arts, U t a h Arts I n stitute, a n d U t a h Museums Association, 1977.)

As the title states, this looseleaf binder is a compilation of t h e museums a n d galleries in U t a h , including relevant information about them. Since changes in the entries a r e anticipated, the information has been assembled in its present form to make revision easier. T h e directory is available to members of the U t a h Museums Association w h o will be considered subscribers a n d will automatically receive revisions as they are p u b lished. Individual memberships are available for $2.00. F o r additional information regarding subscriptions, contact Edith L a m b , Executive Secretary, U t a h M u s e u m of N a t u r a l History, University of U t a h , Salt Lake City, U t a h 84112.

Fig Tree John: Fiction.

An Indian

in Fact and

By P E T E R G. BEIDLER. ( T u c -

son: University of Arizona Press, 1977. Xxiv + 152 p p . Cloth, $10.50; paper, $4.95.)

Fig T r e e J o h n , a Cahuilla I n d i a n from southern California, was portrayed

by Edwin Corle in a 1935 novel using the epithet as a title. Professor Beidler compares the factual character with t h e fictional one using anthropological, historical, a n d literary perspectives.

Photographic CONRAT

(San

and

Francisco:

California Historical Society* Boston: H o u g h t o n Mifflin Company, 1977.

256 p p . Paper, $9.95.)

A photographic essay o n American agriculture in its various forms throughout the United States. M a n y of the pictures, including t h e U t a h scenes, are taken by D o r o t h e a Lange.

Finding Your Roots. By J E A N E EDDY W E S T I N . (LOS Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, Inc., 1977. 243 p p . $8.95.)

A handbook for Americans of every ethnic group interested in researching their family's history.

Firearms, Mountain

Traps, Men.

(Albuquerque:

and Tools

of the

By C A R L P. R U S S E L L .

University

of N e w

414

Utah Historical

Mexico Press, 1977. X v + 448 + viii pp. Paper, $6.50.)

A reprint in paperback form of a definitive work on the e q u i p m e n t of the trappers a n d fur traders who opened t h e Old West.

Guide to American Indian Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 18171899.

By S T E V E N L. J O H N S O N .

(New

York: Clearwater Publishing C o m pany, I n c . , 1977. Xviii + 503 p p . $19.00.)

This reference work to documents of I n d i a n relations with the U . S . government, primarily legal a n d fiscal, makes formerly inaccessible materials available to students of American I n d i a n affairs.

The

U.S. Forest

Service:

A

institutional politics a n d conservation history on the national level.

Prehistory Vanished

of the Far West: Homes of Peoples.

By L. S.

CRESS-

MAN. (Salt Lake City: University of U t a h Press, 1977. 261 p p . $15.00.)

Written by a n archaeologist, this study deals with h u m a n occupation of the far western portion of N o r t h America based on artifacts a n d inferences from these.

Professor Cressman also uses the perspectives of physical environment a n d linguistics to further his analysis. T h e book contains an extensive bibliography, primarily of works published by 1969.

Aspects of U t a h discussed include land structures, linguistics, a n d various cultural groups.

History.

By H A R O L D K . S T E E N . ( S e a t t l e : U n i -

versity of Washington Xvi + 356 p p . $15.00.)

Quarterly

Press, 1976.

As a n anniversary examination of its history, the U . S . Forest Service cooperated with the Forest History Society to produce this book, hoping perhaps to thereby avoid the onus of a n in-house history. T h e work focuses on t h e chiefs of the Forest Service a n d on national policies evolved from the conservation movement u p until t h e 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act. T h e book is of value to students mainly interested in

Valiant Venture II: Continuation of the History of James Blazzard and Mary Catherine Jolley. By C A T H E R I N E B. C U R T I S , ( n . p . : A u t h o r , 1976.

Xlix + 4 2 6 p p . ) Mrs. Curtis has a perfectly delightful storytelling style that captures the reader at once. T h e details of day-to-day living a m o n g M o r m o n settlers in southeastern Arizona a n d elsewhere create a picture of real h u m a n beings interacting a n d give the book the ring of genuine social history through the m e d i u m of a family history.

S T A T E M E N T OF O W N E R S H I P , M A N A G E M E N T , AND C I R C U L A T I O N

T h e Utah Historical Quarterly is published quarterly by the Utah State Historical Society, 603 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, U t a h 84102. T h e editor is Melvin T. Smith and the managing editor is Stanford J. Layton with offices at the same address as the publisher. T h e magazine is owned by the U t a h State Historical Society, and no individual or company owns or holds any bonds, mortgages, or other securities of the Society or its magazine.

T h e purposes, function, a n d nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt for federal income tax purposes have not changed during the preceding twelve months.

status

T h e following figures are the average number of copies of each issue during the preceding twelve m o n t h s : 3,430 copies printed; no paid circulation; 2,769 mail subscriptions; 2,769 total paid circulation; 150 free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier, or other means; 2,919 total distribution; 511 inventory for office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: total 3,430. T h e following figures are the actual number of copies of single issue published nearest to filing d a t e : 3,335 copies p r i n t e d ; no paid circulation; 2,898 mail subscriptions; 2,898 total paid circulation; 150 free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier, or other m e a n s ; 3,048 total distribution; 287 inventory for office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing; total 3,335.

INDEX Numbers

in italics refer to

Abbott, William F., shooting of, 147 Adams, Alva B., Colorado senator and Teapot Dome, 361-62 Adams, Johnny, Paria rancher, 196-97, 198 Alaska, rumors of Mormon migration to, 2 3 35 Aldrich, Nelson W., chairman of Senate Finance Committee, 326, 329, 331 Alexander II, czar, and sale of Alaska, 28 Allred, Ed, son of John, 51 Allred, John, Shonesburg settler, 51, 53 Alta, mining of dumps at, 158-62 Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners, English origin of, 113 American Federation of Labor, 129-30 Ames power plant, Colorado electric facility, 175-77, 776 Anaconda Company, copper smelting process of, 162 Anderson, L. R., delegate to 1920 G O P convention, 371 Anderson, N., Ogden city councilman, 349 Anderson, Nels, writings of, 5, 399 Appleby, William, calligrapher and clerk of Brigham Young, 265-69 Arizutah Company, origin of, 193 Armstrong, Francis, and water rights dispute, 182 Arrington, Leonard J., writings of, 5, 8-9 Arthur Christopher J., imprisoned polygamist, 347 Ashurst, Henry F., Arizona senator and Colorado River development, 365 Ashworth, Paul, teacher at Telluride Institute, 180-81 Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, 292, 295 Averett, Elijah, Dixie settler, 231 Averett boys, Shonesburg settlers, 52

B Bales, M. P., president, Utah Federation of Labor, 140-41 Bamberger, Simon, governor, and reclamation, 366 Bancroft, Hubert Howe, writings of, 5-6, 254 Bancroft, William Hazard, and Salt Lake City transit system, 185 Barclay, James W., British investor, 303 Barclay, Mr. and Mrs. William, British investors, 293 Baum, John H., writings of, 13-14 Beehive House, 277 Belohlavek, John M., writings of, 37, 40, 43 Benson, Ezra T.: and typographers union, 111 ; witnessed marriage, 273 Bernhisel John M., delegate to Congress, 29, 35 Big Cottonwood Power Company, and water rights dispute, 182-83 Bigelow, Asa, brother of L. B. Young, 278

illustrations.

Bigelow, Hiram, brother of L. B. Young, 278 Bigelow, Mary Foster Gibbs, mother of L. B. Young, 271,275, 276, 278, 286 Bigelow, Mary Jane, sister of L. B. Young, 271,272-73,274, 275, 276 n. 3 Bigelow, Nahum, father of L. B. Young, 271, 273, 276 Bingham, 348 Birch, Joseph, St. George home of, 284 Black Hawk War, 189 Blacl smiths, 107, 108, 112 Blakemore, Page, mining engineer, 159â&#x20AC;&#x201D;62 Blasdel, H. V., Ogden city councilman, 349 Bolton, Herbert E., described Brigham Young, 218 Borah, William E., Idaho senator, at 1920 GOP convention, 373, 374, 375 Bowring, Mrs. Henry E., Salt Lake Theatre costumer, 278 Bowen, Emma Lucy Gates, opera singer, 351 Brandegee, Frank B., Connecticut senator, at 1920 G O P convention, 374, 376 Briggs, Nancy, Shonesburg teacher, 52 Broadbent, Lorin, and Paria pumping venture, 197 Brugger, Gottfried, amputee, 168-69 Brush Electric Light Company, demonstration by, 174 Buchanan, James: Healy portrait of, 36; Mormon policy of, 22, 27, 29, 30, 37, 3 8 39 40, 43-44, 46; writings about, 36-46 Bunting, James L., Kanab settler, 87 Bursum, Holm O., New Mexico senator and Teapot Dome, 357, 362 Burton, Richard F., described Brigham Young, 221, 223, 225

Caff all, Tom, rancher, 199 Caine, John T., and statehood, 297 Calder, William M., New York senator, at 1920 GOP convention, 376 Calhoun, John W., engineer, and Paria River venture, 193 Cameron, Frank N., Utah Fuel Company official, 152-53 Cameron, Ralph H , Arizona senator, and Teapot Dome, 356, 362 Campbell, James, entrepreneur, and Ames power plant, 176 Campbell, Robert Lang, and early labor organizations, 110, 114 Camp Douglas officers, 349 Camping in Utah, 350 Camion, Frank J., and Brigham Young, 239, 244, 246 Canron, George Q., 238-39, 302; and J. W. Young, 303, 304, 305; as power company organizer, 183 ; and Scott amendment, 300; and statehood, 297; and typographers union, 111 Carbon County, 1922 coal miners' strike in, 135-57

416 Cardon, C. P., delegate to 1920 G O P convention, 371 Carlisle, S. H., stonecutter, 120 Carrington, Albert: excommunication of, 296; opposed railway route, 2 9 1 ; and typographers union, 111 Cathen, George, Shonesburg settler, 50 Cedar City, report on Iron Mission at, 75-76 Chandless, William, described Brigham Young, 223 C h a p m a n , William, Ogden City councilman, 349 Chestnutwood, Charles M., writings of, 13 Christensen, Lelia, Annabella resident, 163 Christensen, M a u d , Annabella resident, 164, 167 Christensen, Peter, Annabella resident, 164, 167 Christensen, Sheldon, Annabella resident, 164-65 Christensen, Telia, Annabella resident, 163 Christensen, Tex, Annabella resident, 164 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: attitudes toward, in media, 45-46, 381, 393, 3 9 7 - 9 8 ; and early union movement, 108-34; leaders of, involved in power development, 1 8 2 - 8 3 : and Retrenchment, 110-11, 118, 119; and social control, 7 5 92; and sugar, 336, 343 Citizens' Electric Light Company, 183 City Rocks mine, Alta, 159 Civil War, effect of, on U t a h workers, 110, 115 Clapp, Marbeth, placer mining venture of, 192-93 Clapp, Rolla E., placer mining venture of, 192-93 Clark, R. Garn, physician, 164-65 Clayton, William: colonizing call of, 230; and Deseret Dramatic Association, 109-10 Cleveland, Grover, and U t a h statehood, 297, 299, 300, 302, 305 Clapper, Charlie, Shonesburg settler, 48 Clove, James, associate of Reed Smoot, 371 Coconino Water Development Company, 193 Coffman, William E., writings of, 12-13 Cole Brothers Circus, electric light displayed

by, 174 Colorado River Compact, 194, 201, 365 Columbus Rexall mine, Alta, 158 Connor, Patrick E., and electric light demonstration, 174 Consolidated Railway and Power Company.

185 Coolidge, Calvin: and Colorado River development, 3 6 5 - 6 6 ; and 1920 G O P convention, 370, 3 7 9 ; and tariffs, 336; and Teapot Dome, 357, 358, 359, 360 Corey, C. J., Ogden city councilman, 349 Crawford, Jessie, nursing student, 167 Creel, George, Woodrow Wilson aide, 359 Creer, Leland H., writings of, 6 Crockett, H. E., acting governor, and 1922 coal miners' strike, 140 Cromar, H. B., labor leader, 134 Cucan Corporation, placer mining venture of, 193 Cullom, Shelby, member of Senate Finance Committee, 331

Utah Historical Curtis, GOP Cutler, ture,

Quarterly

Charles, Kansas senator, at 1920 convention, 376 Dean, and Paria River pumping ven197

Dantis, John, trial and acquittal of, 154 Dastrup, I la, writings of, 8 Daugherty, Henry, Harding's campaign manager and attorney general, 357, 358, 376 Davis, David W., Idaho governor, and reclamation, 366 De La Mar, Joseph L., Mercur mill operator, 179 DeMille, Amina, Shonesburg resident, 58 DeMille Annabel, Shonesburg resident, 56" DeMille, Art, Shonesburg resident, 49 DeMille, Emily, Shonesburg resident, 56 DeMille, Emily Almina Beal, Shonesburg resident, 53 DeMille, Fidelia Winget, Shonesburg resident, 55 DeMille, Oliver: home of, 47, 48, 5 6 - 5 8 , 60; Shonesburg resident, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 60 DeMille, Oliver II, Shonesburg resident, 50, 52, 54, 58 DeMille, Oscar, Shonesburg resident, 55, 56 Dean, D. L., Duchesne bank president, 72-73 Decker, Charlie, son-in-law of Brigham Young, 275 Decker, Vilate Young, daughter of Brigham Young, 274-75 Denby, Edwin, secretary of the navy, and Teapot Dome, 353, 360, 363 Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, protest of, against dam, 178-79 Dern, George H., governor, and Colorado River development, 365 Deseret Dramatic Association: organization of, 109-10; petition of, for salaries 110, 115 Deseret Hospital, board of directors of, 346 Deseret News: and early labor movement, 115, 125, 126, 128; and electric power, 173 Deseret Typographical Association, charter and officers of, 111, 112 Deseret Typographical and Press Association, 111 Deseret Typographical Union, Local 115: increase in membership of, 128; Mormon domination of. 121; name of, changed, 127: national chartering of, 121 Deseret School Teachers Association, 114 Deseret Teachers Association, 114 de Stoeckl, Edward, Russian diplomat 24, 27-28, 28 De Voto, Bernard, opinion of, on Reed Smoot, 399 Dickson, William H., territorial district attorney, 3 0 0 - 3 0 1 , 302 Dill, C. O , Washington senator, and Teapot Dome, 362 Dingley Tariff, 325, 326, 327, 330 Dixie Cotton Mission, 48 Doheny, Edward L., and Teapot Dome, 353, 356-63, 400

417

Index Dolliver, Jonathan, and Payne-Aldrich Tariff, 331 Doremus, Abram F., surveyed railway route, 291 Dorrity, Sam, mine guard, shooting of, 140, 153-54 Douglass, G. B., Ogden city councilman, 349 Duchesne Messenger (Duchesne), 70 Duchesne Record ( M y t o n ) , 70 Dunford, Alma, first husband of Susa Young Gates, 285 Dunford, Frank Morley, first husband of Dora Young, 283-84 Dusenberrys, educators, and teachers union, 114

Edmunds-Tucker Act, 298-300, 304 Eldredge, J. W., Jr., delegate to 1920 G O P convention, 371 Electric power, early development of, 173-87 Emergency Tariff Act, 335, 354 Emerson, Frank O , Wyoming governor, and Colorado River development, 365 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, visit of, to Brigham Young, 221-22 Emett, James S., at Lee's Ferry, 191, 199 Emigration Canyon, quarries in, 290 Emma mine, Alta, 159, 160-61 Ephraim, orchestra in, 351 Evans, David: and tbeatre salaries, 110; as shorthand teacher, 282 Evans, John Henry, and Brigham Young, 245

Fabian, Harold P., delegate to 1920 G O P convention, 371 Fall, Albert B., secretary of the interior, and Teapot Dome, 353-63, 368 Farley, James A., and 1920 G O P convention, 377 Field, A. L., and promotion of Paria range, 193 Fillmore, Mildred, nursing student, 166, 167 Fillmore, Millard, Know-Nothing candidate, 32 Findlay, Merle, and Paria River, 197-98 Finlay, Mr., British investor, 293 Finney, Edward O , assistant secretary of the interior, and Teapot Dome, 354 Fisher, Henry W., private in Johnston's Army, 41 Flagstaff mine, Alta, 159 Floyd, John B., secretary of war, and Utah Expedition, 37, 38, 40, 44 Ford, Lynn, and Paria River 197 Fordney-McCumber Tariff, 336-38, 354, 355 Forest Farm, 281 Fort Douglas, railroad right-of-way across, 298 Fox, Feramorz Y , writings of, 8-9 Francaviglia, Richard V., writings of, 14-16, 80

Gardner, Hamilton, National Guard officer, and 1922 coal strike, 149 Gardner, Robert, Dixie settler, 231 Gates, Jacob F., second husband of Susa Young, 288 Gates, Susa Young, 285; birth of, 2 7 8 ; children of, 2 8 5 - 8 6 ; marriages of, 285, 288; and St. George Temple dedication, 286; writings of, 2 5 9 - 6 1 , 271 General Leasing Act, 352, 353 Gibson, A. E., Carbon County commissioner, and 1922 coal strike, 140, 141 Gifford, O. D., Shonesburg resident, 51 Gifford, Si, Shonesburg resident, 58 Gillespie, Frank H., and water rights dispu:e, 182 Glen Canyon Dam, effects of, 200 Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 201 Glendinning, James, Salt Lake City mayor, vetoed power contract, 183 Goddard, George, as rag collector, 230 Gold King Mining Company, Colorado, alternating current successfully used at, 175, 176-77 Golder, Frank A., writings of, 24 Gorchakov, Aleksandr M., Russian foreign minister, 27, 28 Gould, Samuel, St. George gardener, 284 Grand Canyon Cattle Company, 191 Grant, Fleber J., LDS church president, 67, 296, 336, 373 Grant, Jedediah M., LDS official, 111, 242 Granite power plant, 182 Greeks, and 1922 coal strike, 138, 140, 143, 146, 148, 149, 153-54 Green, D. C., power company official, 365 Green, Elizabeth, letter of Brigham Young to, 223-24 Gregory, Thomas, attorney general, and Teapot Dome, 359 Griffin, C. A., rancher, 194 Griffin, H. L., Ogden city councilman, 349 Grizzly mine, Alta 159, 160 Groesbeck, Nicholas, contractor, 120

H Hackney, L. S., and Paria River, 193 Hamblin, Jacob, at Pipe Springs and K a n a b , 190 Hanchett, Marva Christensen, Sevier County nurse, biography of, 163-72 Hanchett, Myron ( h u s b a n d ) , 169, 170 Hanchett, Patricia ( d a u g h t e r ) , 171 Hanchett, T h a n n Myron (son), 170-71 Hanchett, Trudy ( d a u g h t e r ) , 171 Hanck, C. R., Ogden city councilman, 349 Hansen, Klaus J., writings of, 6 Harding, Warren G., 369; nomination and election of, 335, 3 7 0 - 7 1 , 3 7 6 - 7 9 ; and tariffs, 336; and Teapot Dome, 353, 354, 355, 356 Harriman, E. H., and Salt Lake transit system, 185-86 Harrison, Benjamin, territorial appointments of. 301, 307

418 Harvey, George, and 1920 G O P convention, 372, 374, 376 Haymond, Creed, and 1920 G O P convention, 377 Hays, William H., chairman of Republican National Committee, 375 Heflin, J. Thomas, Alabama senator, and Teapot Dome, 361 Heiner, Moroni, mine official, indictment of, 153 Henness, F. O , mine superintendent, 147 Hercules Power Company, 181 Hirschi, Rachel DeMille, Shonesburg resident, 55 Hirshson, Stanley P., writings of, 261-62 Hoover, H e r b e r t : and 1920 G O P Convention, 3 7 0 ; as secretary of commerce 3 6 5 6 6 ; and tariffs, 336 H o m e , Isabelle M., hospital director, 346 Hotchkiss, C. B., mine official, indictment of, 153 Houston, William, U M W A official, and 1922 coal strike, 139, 142, 145 Howard, Elizabeth, hospital director, 346 Hull, Cordell, chairman of Democratic National Committee, and Teapot Dome, 355 Hunter, Milton R., writings of, 6-7 Hurlbut, F. B., Ogden city councilman, 349 Hyde, Jeanette, delegate to 1920 G O P convention, 371 Hyde, John, described Brigham Young, 220 Hyde, M a r i n d a N., hospital director, 346

Idaho Power and Transportation Company, 187 Ingham, N. D., promoted Paria range, 193 International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, Local 27, 729 International Typographical Union, Local 115, 119, 128 Iron Moulders Union, Local 231, 129

Utah Historical

Quarterly

Jones, R. M.. civil engineer, 181-82 Jones, R. O , minister, accused organizers, 148

UMWA

Kambourakis, Tony, murder trial of, 154 K a n a b , study of town of, 84-90 K a n a b United O r d e r : census taken by, 84; dissension in, 88, 89, 90 Kane, Elizabeth, and Brigham Young, 223, 247, 248 Kane, Thomas L., 30 Kazuta, Hideo, and 1922 coal strike, 142 Kelter, T. F., Carbon County sheriff, 140 Kendrick, John B., Wyoming senator and Teapot Dome, 354, 361 Kenner, Dock, Shonesburg resident, 58 Kesler, Frederick, and Brigham Young 227 Kimball, Heber O , 250, 273 Kimball, Solomon F., and Brigham Young's settlement tour, 239, 240, 247, 249, 250 King, Ikie, and building of power line to Mercur, 179 King, Samuel A., attorney for coal miners, 141, 145, 150, 154 King, William H., senator, and reclamation, 366 Kiskadden, Annie Adams, and Deseret Dramatic Association, 110 Klein, Philip S., writings of, 39, 46 Klohr, James E., hydrographer, 194 Kluckhohn, Clyde, writings of, 79-80 Knerr, William M., member of State Industrial Commission, 141 Knight Consolidated Power Company, 187 Knight, J. W., coal company official, indictment of, 153 Knights of Saint Crispin, boot and shoe makers union, 113 Kriaris, John, murder trial of, 154 Kukis, Pete, murder trial of, 154

L Jack, Ina, reared by L. B. Young, 283 Jackson, Richard H., writings of, 16-18 Jacobs, Chariton, son of Z. D. Young, 281 Jacobs, Zebulon, son of Z. D. Young, 278 Jacobson, Jay, Alta miner, 159-60 Japanese, and 1922 coal strike, 142-43, 149 Jarvis, Fred, striking miner, shooting of, 140 Jenks, George A., solicitor general, 301-2 Jennings, William, Salt Lake City mayor, and electric light demonstration, 174 Jensen, Lars, mayor of Scofield, 142 Johnson, Elmer, National Guard officer, and 1922 coal strike, 148-49 Johnson, Hiram, W., California senator, 365, 370, 373 Johnson, Warren M., at Lee's Ferry, 191, 199 Johnston, Albert Sidney, 30, 44 Johnston's Army, 41, 264 Jones, Andrieus A., New Mexico senator, and Teapot Dome, 355, 360, 361 Jones, Dan, visit of, with Brigham Young, 227

Labor: and early union movement 1 0 8 - 3 4 ; and 1922 coal strike, 135-57 La Follette, Robert M , Wisconsin senator, and Teapot Dome, 354 Lakakis, Steven, trial and acquittal of, 154 Lamb, Abel, cooper, 113 Lambert, Charles, stonecutter, 113 Lamont, Daniel S., Grover Cleveland's secretary, 301-2 Lane, Franklin K., secretary of the interior, and Teapot Dome, 359 Langley, Harold D., writings of, 40-43 Larson, Alf, at St. George cemetery, 349 Larson, Christian, Shonesburg resident 57, 58 Larson, Gustive O., writings of, 7 Lavery, J. T., labor leader, 134 Lavinia mine, Alta, 159, 160 League of Nations: and Heber J. Grant 373 : in 1920 G O P platform, 369-70, 371, 373 Lee, John D . : and Brigham Young's settlement tours, 244, 250; at Lee's Ferry, 191, 199

419

Index Lenroot, Irvine I,., Wisconsin senator, and Teapot Dome, 353, 355-61 Leone, Mark P., writings of, 80 Lewis, H. E., coal company official, shooting of, 147, 149 Ligner, James J., and U.S. Geological Survey, 201 Lion House, 277; building of, 277-78 Linnell, Carrie, knitter, 283 Linnell, Fannie, knitter, 283 Linnell, Sarah, knitter, 283 Little Cottonwood Water Power and Electric Company, 183 Little, James T., and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 291 Lodge, Henry Cabot: and 1920 G O P convention 372 376, 378; and tariffs, 330, 331 Log Row, Brigham Young's wives lived in, 275, 276, 277 Long, J. V., settlement tour clerk, 235, 236, 244-45 Loose, C. E.: 1920 G O P convention delegate, 3 7 1 ; and Reed Smoot, 329 Love, Afton, store owner, 347 Lowden, Frank O., and 1920 G O P convention, 370, 378 Lowe, Frank, Sevier County physician, 170 Ludlow, FitzHugh, described Brigham Young, 219, 220 Lyman, Amasa, and typographers union, 111 Lynch, J. C , 1920 G O P convention delegate, 371

M Mabey, Charles R., governor, 145, 369; and 1922 coal strike, 140-41, 144, 146, 148, 150, 153, 156 M a c M a h o n , Sister, immigrant from India, 283 Maeser, Karl G., and teachers union, 114 Makesmrticos [sic], Mike, Greek striker, shooting of, 140 M a m m o t h Oil Company, and Teapot Dome, 353 Manning, Dan W., Richfield hospital owner, 170 Manousos, George, Greek striker, 140, 153— 54 Manti, 4 Martin, Edward, represented painters and glaziers, 113 May, Dean L, writings of, 8—9 McAdoo, William G., secretary of the treasury, and Teapot Dome, 359 McAllister, Eugene, and Paria pumping venture, 197, 198, 199 McArthur, D. D., St. George militia colonel, 189 McCook, Joseph, general, 298 McCormick, Joseph Medill, and 1920 G O P convention, 374, 375, 376 McCumber, Porter J., chairman of Senate Finance Committee, 336 McEwan, Henry, president of typographers local, 111, 112, 121, 127

Mclntyre, Robert, murder of, 189 McLean, Edward B., Washington Post publisher, 357, 360 McMullen, Mrs. Willard, immigrant of 1848, 274 McMullen, Willard, immigrant of 1848, 274 McQuarrie, John Gray, Sevier County physician, 168-69 Meeks, William, activities of, at K a n a b , 190 Meinig, Donald W., writings of, 80 Mercur, early power development at, 179 Michigan-Utah Mine Company, Alta, 159 Miller, Elbert E., writings of, 13 Miller, J. O , auto mechanic, 181 Millett, Alma, Shonesburg resident, 52 Millett, Byron, Shonesburg resident, 58 Millett, Joseph, Jr., Shonesburg resident, 56, 57 Millett O r p h a DeMille, Shonesburg resident, 57 Mills, Ogden L., and 1920 G O P convention, 374, 375 Mining, 348; and early labor movement, 123— 24; and 1922 coal strike, 135-57 Mitchell, Sidney Z., power company official, 365 Mormons: acculturation of, 75-92; and Alaska migration rumor, 2 3 - 3 5 ; and early trade union movement, 108-16; propaganda against, 23, 3 0 - 3 4 ; record-keeping of, 8 3 - 8 4 ; and Reformation, 259; towns settled by, 7 6 - 7 7 ; writings about, 4-21 Mortensen, A. Russell, writings of, 7 Mountain Meadow Massacre, 32, 260 Mulder, William, writings of, 7 Musser, N. B., and Reed Smoot, 399 Myton, 67, 69, 70

N National Conservation Congress, 353 National Park Service, creation of, 352, 353 National Typographers Union, 111 Nauvoo Expositor, destruction of, ordered by Joseph Smith, Jr., 260 Nelson, Aaron, St. George cemetery sexton, 349 Nelson, Lowry, writings of, 7-8, 80 Nevins, Allan described Brigham Young, 218, 232 News Advocate (Price), and 1922 coal strike, 138 Nibley, Charles W., LDS church presiding bishop, 330, 336, 365 Nibley, Josepb, lobbyist, 330 Noble Order of the Knights of Labor, 1 2 5 27, 128-30 Norbeck, Peter, South Dakota senator, and Teapot Dome, 361 Norris, George W., U.S. senator, 364 N u n n , Lucien L., 174, 178; activities of, in U t a h , 1 7 8 - 8 1 ; and Ames power plant, 175; education and business background of, 175-77 Nunn, Paul N., 174, 178; activities of, in U t a h , 1 7 8 - 8 1 ; and Ames power plant, 175; educational background of, 177 N u n n power plant, Provo Canyon, 178, 179

Utah Historical

420 O'Dea, Thomas F., writings of, 80 Ogden City Council, 1890, 349 Ogden City Electric Light Company, 175, 184 Ogden, electric power for, 174, 183 Ogden Power and Electric Railway, 183 Ogden Street Railway Company, 185 Old Folks Day at Lagoon, 1898, 346 Old Grace power plant, 181 Olmsted power plant, Provo Canyon, 178, 180, 180-81 Osborne, John, labor leader, 134 Ostler, David, Sevier County physician, 170

Pagialakis, Mike, m u r d e r trial of, 154 Pahreah Mining Company, 193 Pan American Oil Company, and Teapot Dome, 353 Paria Canyon Primitive Area, 201 Paria River, 188, 195, 198, 201 ; for culinary use, 199-200; drainage of, 188-89; floods on, 194; historic uses of, 189-201 Park City butcher shop, 1905, 347 Park, John R., and teachers union, 144 Parkyn, Herbert A., placer mining scheme of, 192-93 Parsons, Talcot, writings of, 79-80 Parunuweap Canyon, 48, 49 Patient Smelting and Concentrating, 174 Payne-Aldrich Tariff, 327, 329-32 Payne, Henry Clay, chairman of House Ways a n d Means Committee, 326, 327, 331 Payson, Lewis E., Illinois congressman, 298 Penrose, Charles W., and statehood, 297 Peters, George S., territorial district attorney, 301 Peterson, Charles S., writings of, 10-11 Petty, Albert, Shonesburg resident, 50 Petty, George, Shonesburg resident, 48, 50 Phelps, William W., printer, 111 Phipps, Lawrence C., Colorado senator, and reclamation, 366 Pierce, Mathew, hydrographer, 200 Pioneer Electric Power Company, 173, 183 Pitt, William, and Deseret Dramatic Association, 110 Pittman, Key, Nevada senator, and Teapot Dome, 362 Plasterers and Cement Masons Union, Local 68, 129 Pomerence, Atlee, and Teapot Dome, 359 Potter, Abner, Pahreah resident, 191, 192 Pratt, Orson, and typographers union, 111 Pratt, Romania, physician and hospital director, 346 Printers, history of union organization of, 111-12, 117, 118, 119, 127-28 Provo, power development at, 178â&#x20AC;&#x201D;81 Pugmire, Jonathan, blacksmith, 112 Pulsipher, John, Dixie settler, 231

Railroads, effect of, on labor movement 123

118,

Quarterly

Ramsay, John, U M W A official, 150 Rasband, Jim, Park City butcher, 347 Red Butte Canyon, quarries in, 212, 290 Remy, Jules, described Brigham Young, 218, 220, 221, 222 Richards, Franklin D., LDS official, 75, 297 Richards, Franklin S., LDS church attorney, 297, 298, 299, 305, 306 Richards, Jane, hospital director, 346 Richards, W. A., federal land commissioner, 65 Richards, Willard, LDS official, 226, 273 Ricks, Joel E., writings of, 9-10 Riter, William W.: railroad organizer, 2 9 0 91 ; and statehood, 305 Roberts, Brigham H . : refused seat in House, 388, 395, 396 ; writings of, 8 Roberts, Owen J., and Teapot Dome, 359 Robinson, Joseph T., Arkansas senator, 360 Rockwell, F. O , and Paria River venture, 193 Rockville, 346: and Shonesburg settlement, 51-52, 58, 60 Rolapp, F. H., coal company official, indictment of, 153 Romney, Miles P., and unions, 113, 123 Roosevelt, Archie, and Teapot Dome, 357 Roosevelt, Franklin D., and tariffs, 340-41 Roosevelt, Theodore, and tariffs, 326 Root, Elihu, and 1920 G O P convention, 374 Russell, Brother, Shonesburg resident, 152 Russell, Majors, and Wadell, and U t a h Expedition, 43 Russian-American Company, and rumors of Mormon migration to Alaska, 27

St. George cemetery, 349 St. George Builders Union, 122-23 St. George Temple, 287 Saltair, 351 Salt Creek brass band, 249 Salt Lake City: electric power for, 174, 182, 183 ; street railway of, 348 Salt Lake and Eastern Railway, 308 Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway: building of, 298, 303, 308; engine of, 304; financing of, 293, 296, 303, 3 0 5 ; merger of, 308; origin of, 2 9 0 - 9 2 ; pass for, 307; route and rights-of-way of, 291, 292-93, 298, 303 ; and statehood, 297-98 Salt Lake County General Hospital School of Nursing, 166, 767, 168 Salt Lake Ministerial Association, seating of Reed Smoot protested by, 396 Salt Lake and Ogden Gas and Electric Light Company, 183 Salt Lake Light and Traction Company, 185 Salt Lake Power, Light, and Heating Company, 174 Salt Lake Rock Company, 290 Salt Lake Theatre, performers at, demand salaries, 110 Salt Lake Tribune, role of, in early labor movement, 118-19, 121, 124 Salyards, N. J., Provo postal inspector, 139 Samuels, Edward, Vernal bank promoter, 71 Saturday Evening Globe, newspaper of J. W. Young, 305, 307

Index Savage, Charles R., photographer on Brigham Young's settlement tour, 239, 240, 241,242,246,248,249 Saxton, Jim, Shonesburg resident, 59 School of the Prophets, recommendation of, to lower wages, 116, 120 Scott, William L., amendment of, to Edmunds-Tucker Act, 298-300 Sevier Valley Hospital, Richfield, 170 Sharp, James, and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 290 Sharp, John, LDS bishop, 304 Sharp, John, Jr., and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 290-91 Shipp, Ellis R., physician and hospital director, 346 Shirts, Peter, home of, on Paria River, 189 Shonesburg, 48, 59; settlement and history of, 47-60 Siler, Andrew L., described Brigham Young's settlement tour, 246 Simmons, Joseph M., calligrapher and clerk of Brigham Young, 265, 267-69 Simpson, John E., writings of, 3, 40, 43 Sinclair, Harry F., oil company official, and Teapot Dome, 353, 356-58, 362-63 Slack, Horace, Shonesburg resident, 53 Slack, Lorenzo, Shonesburg resident, 53 Slack, Walt, Shonesburg resident, 54 Slattery, Harry, and Teapot Dome, 354 Sleater, Robert Gibson, early union leader and president of Local 115 of the typographers, 119, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131 Sloan, Irving J., writings of, 37 Smart and Webster Livestock Company, 63 Smart, Anna Haines, wife of William H., 66 Smart, Thomas, brother of William H., 72 Smart Thomas Lawrence, son of William H., 73 Smart, William Henry, 61, 66; and banking, 7 1 - 7 3 ; and LDS church, 62-64, 65-67, 6 8 ; newspapers established by, 69—70; and Uinta Basin settlement, 62-70 Smith, Asael, grandfather of Joseph, Jr., 9 1 , 92 Smith, Bathsheba, hospital director, 346 Smith, Elbert B., writings of, 37, 39, 43 Smith, George A., 225, 269; death of, 295; and M ormon settlement, 231, 236, 240, 246, 247 Smith, Jesse N., and Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, 295 Smith, J. Fewson, and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 290-91 Smith, John Henry, and Uinta Basin settlement, 65 Smith, Joseph F . : and cooperatives, 109; and J. W. Young, 295, 3 0 4 - 7 ; as power company organizer, 183; and U i n t a Basin settlement, 64, 65, 6 6 - 6 7 , 68 Smith, Joseph, Jr.: and Brigham Young, 255, 256; and town planning, 7 6 - 7 7 ; and United Order, 9 1 , 92 Smith, William Alden, Washington senator, 334 Smoot, Abraham O . : as father of Reed, 370; strikers asked to return to work by, 124-25 Smoot, Harlow, son of Reed, 377 Smoot, Harold R., son of Reed, and Teapot Dome, 359-60

421 Smoot, Mrs. Reed, death of, 338 Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 325, 338-40, 342, 343 Smoot, Reed, 323, 324, 361 ; article on Mormonism by, 381 ; and conservation, 352— 5 3, 3 6 3 - 6 8 ; and Emery Tariff, 354; and Fordney-McCumber Tariff, 336-37, 3 5 4 ; and League of Nations, 3 7 3 - 7 6 ; and 1920 C O P convention, 3 6 9 - 7 9 ; and nomination of Harding, 335, 376—79; and Payne/Mdrich Tariff, 326, 3 2 7 - 3 2 ; public image o : , 3 8 2 - 4 0 0 ; and Senate Finance Committee, 326, 329, 330, 331, 334, 335, 338, 3 54; and Smoot-Haw4ey Tariff, 338-40, 342, 3 4 3 ; and sugar tariff, 325, 326, 329, 330, 333, 336-37, 338, 339, 340, 343, 344: and Teapot Dome, 353-64, 3 6 8 ; and Underwood Tariff, 333—34; and wool tariff, 325, 326, 329-30, 332, 333, 337, 338 Smoot, Samuel P., grandson of Reed, 377 Smythe, William K., writings of, 78-79 Snelgrove, Edward, boot and shoe maker, 113 Snow, Eliza R.: as a historical figure, 2 7 0 71 ; as hospital director, 346; as a spiritual k a d e r , 280 Snow, Erastus: and Iron Mission, 75—76; and Jacob Hamblin, 190; and typographers union, 111 Snow, Lorenzo: and ordination of Reed Smoot, 370; and settlement tour, 236, 249 Social Flail, building of, 110 Sorenson, John L., writings of, 80 Southern Paiute Indians, relations of, with settlers in southern U t a h , 189-90 Spence, A. T., rancher, 197 Spencer, Charles H., at Lee's Ferry, 191-93 Spencer, Joseph E., writings of, 11-12 Spencer, Selden P., Missouri senator, and Teapot Dome, 362 Spetris, George, trial and acquittal of, 154 Spry, William, governor, 323, 366 Stairs power plant, Big Cottonwood Canyon, 182 Standard (Roosevelt), 70 Stanfield, Robert N., Oregon senator, and Teapot Dome, 362 Statehood, John W. Young's activities in behalf of, 297-308 Stayner, Arthur, and Salt Lake and Fort E'ouglas Railway, 298 Stevens, Olive DeMille Shonesburg resident, 53, 54, 55 Stevens, Henry, Shonesburg resident, 50 Stevens, Hyrum, Shonesburg resident 48, 50, 52 Stevens, James, carpenter, 120 Stewart, Levi, visit of, with Brigham Young, 227 Stringham, Walter, Shonesburg resident, 58 Story, William, Sr., judge, 175 Sun (Price), and 1922 coal strike, 755, 138 Swapp, Gerald, Paria rancher, 198, 198-99 Sweet, F. A., coal company official, indictment of, 153 Swing, Philip D., California representative, and Colorado River development, 365

Taft, William Howard, 323; and tariff revision, 326-27, 330, 331, 332, 336

422

Utah Historical

Tariff Commission, 338 Taylor. J o h n : ideas of, on towns, 7 7 ; a n d J. W. Young, 2 9 5 - 9 6 ; polygamy exile of, 302 ; and Scott a m e n d m e n t , 300 Taylor, John W., Salt Lake City councilman, 298 T e a p o t D o m e , Reed Smoot's role in scandal and investigation of, 3 5 3 - 6 4 , 368 Telluride Institute. 180, 180-81 Telluride Power C o m p a n y : engineering advances m a d e by. 1 7 9 - 8 1 ; merged with U t a h Power a n d Light Company, 187; N u n n and Olmstead plants of, 1 7 8 - 8 0 ; origins of, 177 T e n a s , John, Greek striker, killing of, 143— 44, 148 T h a x t o n , Jim, Shonesburg resident, 58 T h o m a s , Elbert D., National G u a r d officer, and 1922 coal strike, 149 Tonkin, J. H . , coal company official, indictment of, 153 Tooele smelter, 162 Toponce, Alexander, business dealing of, with Brigham Young, 2 2 6 - 2 7 Trolley Square, building of, 185 Tucker, James B., National G u a r d officer, and 1922 coal strike, 149 Tucker, J o h n R a n d o l p h , a n d E d m u n d s Tucker Act, 298 Tullidge, E d w a r d W., writings of, 254-56 T u r n e r , William H., O g d e n city councilman, 349 Twelves, Orson, a n d building of power line to Mercur, 179 Tyler, Robert, a n d Buchanan's M o r m o n policy, 4 3 - 4 4 Typographical Association of Deseret, 111 Tyson, E d w a r d , plasterer, 120

u Udall, Morris K., presidential campaign of, 45 U i n t a Basin, settlement of, 62—70 Uintah Advocate (Roosevelt), 70 Uintah Chieftain ( M y t o n ) , 70 U i n t a h I n d i a n Reservation, white settlement on, 63 U i n t a h Realty and Investment Company, 69 U i n t a h Stake Academy, 68 U i n t a h State Bank, Vernal, 71 U i n t a h T e l e p h o n e Company, 68 Underwood, Oscar W., chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, 333 U n d e r w o o d Tariff, 3 3 3 - 3 4 Union Power a n d Light C o m p a n y , 183, 185 U n i t e d Mine Workers of America ( U M W A ) , organizing activities of, in C a r b o n County, 1922, 135-36, 142, 145, 150, 152, 153-57 United O r d e r , 1 2 1 - 2 3 , 255 U n i t e d O r d e r of Tailors, 122 U n i t e d Sons of Vulcan, blacksmiths union, 112 Updike, J o h n , writings of, 37, 3 8 - 3 9 43 U.S. Smelting, 160 U t a h Central Railway, 308 U t a h Expedition: sending of, 2 2 - 2 3 , 24, 25, 26, 3 3 ; a n d writings about Buchanan 3 6 46

Quarterly

U t a h Federated T r a d e s a n d L a b o r Council, 128-30. 131 U t a h Federation of L a b o r : a n d 1922 coal strike, 1 4 0 - 4 1 ; officers of, 131, 134 U t a h Fuel C o m p a n y : advertisement of, 151 ; a n d 1922 coal strike, 152-53 U t a h Light and Power Company, 185 U t a h Light a n d Railway Company, 185 U t a h Light a n d Traction C o m p a n y : car barns of, 186; mergers involving, 185-86, 187 ; substation of, 184 U t a h National G u a r d , and 1922 coal strike, 140, 141, 144, 146, 147, 148-52, 156 U t a h Palace Exposition Car, 299 U t a h Power Company, 182 U t a h Power a n d Light Company, 177, 181, 185, 187 U t a h Public H e a l t h Association, 172 U t a h State Bank, Roosevelt, 7 2 - 7 3 U t a h Territorial Prison, polygamist prisoners at, 347 U t a h War, 264 U t a h Western Railway, 292, 295 U t e Indian, 350

V V a n Vliet, Stewart, captain in Johnston's Army, 25, 26, 26 V a u g h n , C. L., railroad engineer, 147 Vernal Express, 69 Victoria mine, Nevada, 162 Vinson, Charles M., labor leader, 134 Virgin River, flooding of, 50, 5 9 - 6 0

w Wahlquist, Wayne L., writings of, 18-20 Wakara, I n d i a n leader, 237 Walker, Charles L., Dixie settler, 231 Wallace, William, irrigation promoter, 366 Walsh, T h o m a s , M o n t a n a senator, a n d T e a pot Dome, 3 5 4 - 6 3 , 368 Walsh, T h o m a s F., writings of, 79 W a r d , David, suitor of L. B. Young, 271 Wasatch Development Company, and U i n t a h Reservation settlement, 64 Wasatch H i g h School, Roosevelt, bond proposal for, 68—69 Wasatch M o u n t a i n Club, 350 Watkins, T h o m a s , labor leader, 134 Watson, James, attended workers meeting, 120 Watson, James, a n d 1922 G O P convention, 375, 376 Weaver, Leo, rancher, 194 Webb, Ann Eliza, notoriety of, 271 Webb, A r t h u r P., mine company guard, shooting death of, 147, 148, 154 Wells, Daniel H., L D S leader, 225, 250 Wells, Emmeline B., hospital director, 346 Werner, Morris R., writings of, 2 5 6 - 5 9 West, Lucy Fisher, writings of, 3 7 - 3 8 , 43 West, Ray, writings of, 263 Westinghouse, George, a n d alternating current, 176, 177 Whitaker, George A., cigarmaker, 130 White, Charles Langoon, writings of, 11

Index White, H. L., president of typographers local, 127 Whitlock, Hardin, Shonesburg resident, 48, 50 Whitmore, J. M., physician, murder of, 189 Whitney, Helen Mar, friend of L. B. Young, 282 Whitney, Horace. K . : and Salt Lake Theatre, 110, 282; as tithing clerk, 269; and typographers union, 111 Whitney, Orson, musician, 110, 282 Wicks, Brother, suitor of Bigelow girls, 271 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 12 Wilson, Woodrow, and tariff revision, 333, 335 Williams, Parley L., and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 290 Williams, W. G., National G u a r d officer, and 1922 coal strike, 140, 150 Wisenburg, Frieda, nursing student, 7 67 Wood, Leonard, and 1920 G O P convention, 370, 378 Woodard, George, St. George hearse owner, 349 Woodruff, Phoebe, hospital director, 346 Woodruff, Wilford: and Brigham Young, 223, 239-40, 287; and J. W. Young, 3 0 5 : as power company organizer, 183; and typographers union, 111 Woolley, E. G., a n d statehood, 305 Woolley, Tony, and Paria River venture, 198-99 Work, Hubert, secretary of the interior, 365 Wyoming Labor Journal (Cheyenne), and 1922 coal strike, 138, 143, 150

YX Express, 258 Young, Amelia Folsom (wife), 285 Young, Brigham, 76, 8 1 , 124, 275, 216, 225, 228, 233, 237, 252, 253, 257, 262, 275, 277, 295; and Alaska rumor, 3 5 ; death of, 252, 287; and Deseret Dramatic Association, 109, 110; and Indians, 32, 2 1 6 - 1 7 ; and labor, 114-15, 117, 118, 120; leadership of, 2 1 6 - 3 2 ; and St. George, 285, 286; and settlement, 48, 58, 60, 2 3 1 - 5 1 ; sons of, ordained apostles, 294, 295; and U t a h Expedition, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34: wives of, 270-71, 2 7 2 - 7 3 , 274, 275, 276, 2 8 3 ; writings about, 254-63 Young, Brigham, Jr. (son), 240, 284, 2 9 4 96, 296, 297 Young, Carlie (daughter) (Caroline), 279 Young, Clara Chase Ross (wife), 275 Young, Clara Decker (wife), 275

423 Young, Dora (daughter) (Eudora Lovina), 285; birth of, 286; marriages and children o r , 283-84, 283 n., 286, 2 8 8 ; and music, 2B2; and temple dedication, 286 Young, Ellen Rockwood (wife), 274 Young, Elbe ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, Emily ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, Emmeline Free (wife), 275 Young, Eva (daughter) (Evaline), 279 Young, Fannie ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, John W. (son), 241, 289, 290; death of, 308; as LDS church official, 294, 295, 296; newspaper of, 305; and polygamy, 293-94, 3 0 1 - 2 ; and railroads, 2 9 1 - 9 3 , 295, 296; and statehood, 297-308 Young, LeGrand ( n e p h e w ) , and Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railway, 290, 291 Young, Lizzie Fenton, (daughter-in-law), 284 Young, Lorenzo Dow ( b r o t h e r ) , 240, 275 Young, Lorenzo H., and shooting death of Greek striker, 143 Young, Lucy Bigelow (wife), 270, 275, 288; children and grandchildren of, 276, 277â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 73, 282, 286; and church work, 286-87, 238; courtship of, 2 7 1 - 7 3 ; marriage of, 275; occupations of, 273-74, 277, 279, 2 3 0 - 8 1 , 2 8 2 - 8 3 ; youth of, 2 7 1 ; at St. George, 284-88 Young, Lucy Decker (wife), 276 Young, Mabel (daughter) ( R h o d a M a b e l ) , 232, 285, 288 Young, Margaret Alley (wife), 275 Young, Maime (daughter) ( M a r y ) , 279 Young, Maria ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, M a r i n d a ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, Mary Ann Angell (wife), 276 Young, Miriam Works (wife), 274 Young, Nett (daughter) ( J e n e t t e ) , 279 Young, Phineas H., and typographers union, 111 Young, Seymour B. ( n e p h e w ) , and Salt Lake a n d Fort Douglas Railroad, 290 Young, Susa ( d a u g h t e r ) . See Gates, Susa Young Young, Susan Snively (wife), 282 Young, Twiss (wife) ( N a a h m a h ) 276 Young, Zina ( d a u g h t e r ) , 279 Young, Zina Diantha Huntington (wife), 2 78, 346

Zane, Charles S., U.S. Third District Court judge, 300-302 Z C M I , 118 Zeveley, J. W., attorney, 358 Zion National Park, 367 Zulakis, Andreas, Greek striker, shooting of, 147 Zulakis, Mike, m u r d e r trial of, 154

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY D e p a r t m e n t of D e v e l o p m e n t S e r v i c e s Division of S t a t e H i s t o r y BOARD O FSTATE

HISTORY

M I L T O N C. A B R A M S , Smithfield, 1981

President D E L L O G. D A Y T O N , O g d e n , 1979

Vice President M E L V I N T . S M I T H , Salt Lake City Secretary M R S . E L I Z A B E T H G R I F F I T H , O g d e n , 1981

W A Y N E K . H I N T O N , C e d a r City, 1981 T H E R O N L U K E , Provo, 1979

DAVID S. M O N S O N , Secretary of State

Ex officio M R S . ELIZABETH M O N T A G U E , Salt Lake City, 1979 MRS.

M A B E L J. O L I V E R , O r e m , 1980

M R S . H E L E N Z. PAPANIKOLAS, Salt Lake City, 1981 H O W A R D C. P R I C E , J R . , Price, 1979

T E D J . W A R N E R , Provo, 1981

ADMINISTRATION M E L V I N T. S M I T H ,

Director

STANFORD J. L A Y T O N , Publications Coordinator JAY M . H A Y M O N D , Librarian DAVID B. M A D S E N , Antiquities Director

T h e U t a h State Historical Society was organized in 1897 by public-spirited U t a h n s to collect, preserve, and publish U t a h and related history. Today, under stale sponsorship, the Society fulfills its obligations by publishing the Utah Historical Quarterly and other historical materials; locating, documenting, and preserving historic a n d prehistoric buildings a n d sites; and maintaining a specialized research library. Donations and gifts to the Society's programs or its library are encouraged, for only through such means can it live up to its responsibility of preserving the record of Utah's past.

MEMBERSHIP Membership in the U t a h State Historical Society is open to all individuals and institutions interested in U t a h history.

Membership applications and change of address notices should be sent to the membership secretary.

Annual dues a r e : Individual, $7.50; institution, $10.00; student, $5.00 (with teacher's statement) ; contributing, $15.00; sustaining, $25.00; patron $50.00; life member, $150.00. Your interest and support are most welcome.

V

^

â&#x20AC;¢

^

fVT