The Making of an Insurgent: Parley P. Christensen and Utah Republicanism, 1900-1912

Parley P. Christensen. Courtesy of author.

The Making of an Insurgent: Parley P. Christensen and Utah Republicanism, 1900-1912

BY JOHN R. SILLITO

I N NOVEMBER 1920 AMERICANS OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTED Warren G Harding, the genial senator from Ohio who promised a "Return to Normalcy," to the presidency over Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox. Harding and Cox were not, however, the only available choices for the electorate. Socialist party nominee Eugene V Debs, campaigning from his cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary where he was incarcerated for violation of the Espionage Act, polled nearly one million votes. Also listed among the defeated aspirants was Utah attorney Parley P. Christensen, nominated in July at a tumultuous convention in Chicago where representatives of labor, agriculture, and progressivism met to organize a new party. The Farmer-Labor party that emerged from that convention sought to unite urban and rural workers in a viable political vehicle. Christensen received over 265,000 presidential votes, no small feat in view of the fact that he was competing with the better known Debs for basically the same constituency. Moreover, the Farmer-Labor campaign war chest was meager, and the party appeared on the ballot in only eighteen states.

Though the presidential nomination of the Farmer-Labor party represented the first time Parley Christensen played a role in national politics, it was really the zenith and not the beginning of his political career. For over a quarter-century he had been actively involved in Utah politics Starting his career as a Republican, Christensen served as a party officer, as Salt Lake County attorney, and as a perennially unsuccessful aspirant for Congress. In 1912 he became disaffected and affiliated with the Bull Moose Progressive party of Theodore Roosevelt. Four years later he supported Woodrow Wilson and the president's pledge to keep this country out of the war engulfing Europe. Discouraged by American entry into the war, as well as by what he felt to be the failure of Wilsonian liberalism, Christensen sought new political alignments, which brought him to Chicago in July 1920.

Some scholarly attention has been given to Christensen's brief involvement in national politics But another crucial period of his career—the years from 1900 to 1912 when he, along with many others, challenged the control of Utah Republicanism by Reed Smoot and his Federal Bunch—has largely been ignored Neither Christensen's presidential candidacy nor his own personal political odyssey can be understood without an examination of his efforts during the period when, as historian Jan Shipps describes it, Utah came of age politically.1

Parley P. Christensen was born in Weston, Idaho, on July 19, 1869. He moved with his family to Cache Valley, Utah, when he was small, and the Christensens ultimately settled in Newton His parents, Peter and Mette Sophia Christensen, were Danish converts to Mormonism who came to America in the wave of Scandinavian immigration of the 1860s. Details of the early life of the Christensen family are sketchy, but it appears that Peter Christensen's commitment to his new-found faith was minimal at best. In 1880 he was excommunicated from the Mormon church—officially for apostasy but largely out of simple indifference. The excommunication deeply affected the family living in the small Mormon community of Newton. Besides no longer claiming allegiance to Mormonism after their father's excommunication, many family members, especially Parley, resented what they saw as the secular power of the LDS church

In 1887 Christensen left Cache Valley to enroll at the University of Utah. After obtaining a normal certificate in 1890 he taught school, first in Murray and then in Grantsville While living in Tooele County he was elected superintendent of schools and became actively involved in the Republican party This led to his selection as secretary of the Utah Constitutional Convention in 1895. After that service he obtained a law degree from Cornell University where he continued to take part in Republican politics.

Christensen returned to Utah in 1897 and opened a law office in Salt Lake City In 1900 he was elected Salt Lake County attorney Defeated for renomination two years later as a result of intraparty factionalism, Christensen regarded Reed Smoot, whom he blamed for his defeat, as a political enemy from that point on. The two men would frequently clash over the next decade. In 1904 Christensen was returned to the office of county attorney, where he championed the cause of organized labor and became the first county attorney to enforce the eight-hour law for municipal workers. This sympathy for labor would play a major role in shaping his later political career.

In 1906 Christensen set his sights on higher office, challenging the renomination of Congressman Joseph Howell, an ally of Smoot. Christensen believed that because he had garnered over 44 percent of the vote in 1904 in a four-way race for county attorney he could use Salt Lake County as a solid political base. Though he conducted a vigorous campaign, he was unable to unseat the heavily favored incumbent.

After losing the nomination and his office as county attorney, Christensen returned to the private practice of law. It is also clear, however, that he intended to maintain his interest in political affairs and to remain active in the Republican party During this period he participated in a number of nonpolitical activities as well. Since his graduation from the University of Utah in 1890 he had maintained contacts with the local alumni association, serving at one time as alumni president. His involvement with the university continued during these years. He also maintained his membership in the Utah Educational Association as late as 1915, some twenty-five years after he was associated with teaching Besides these educational affiliations Christensen belonged to a news writers union and to several social welfare organizations, including the Public Health Defense League of which he was an officer.2

In later years Christensen was described as a "great joiner," and his activities subsequent to his first congressional campaign illustrate that tendency. He joined the Elks in 1902 and during the next eighteen years served in a variety of leadership positions, including representative to the Grand Lodge, chaplain, editor of the local lodge publication, and grand exalted ruler. He also affiliated with the Woodmen of the World and the Oddfellows, holding important positions in both fraternities.

These associations kept him in touch with various sectors of the community while out of office and provided a tangible outlet for his energy and ambition, particularly as his quests for political office met with defeat. In this regard, Christensen's sister, Esther, believed that

Parley was identified with a number of different lodges and organizations because he needed the adulation I always had the feeling that he enjoyed being at the head of a group; carrying the banner In this way he kept in the public eye, and Parley needed that I have a feeling that he was more interested in this than the more routine, daily activities of these groups. 3

In the spring of 1908 the local press speculated that Christensen again had aspirations for the Republican congressional nomination He was defeated in the May party primaries for election as a delegate to the state Republican nominating convention. Indeed, the primaries proved to be a major setback for party progressives as most of the prominent leaders were unsuccessful in bids for delegate slots. The Intermountain Republican commented that the "insurgents" had suffered "a great defeat" and that they were "finished" as a significant force in the party.4 Although this opinion was colored by Smoot's supporters who dominated the editorial policy of the paper, there is no doubt that the general assessment was correct. The progressives had indeed suffered a major setback. Undaunted by his own defeat for delegate, Christensen began laying the groundwork for a second congressional bid. At a meeting in July 1908 some twenty Christensen backers representing Salt Lake, Summit, and Sevier counties met and pledged their support A six member executive committee was named and soon released a statement to the press that read in part:

We are fully satisfied that Christensen is the logical candidate for the position He has ever been actively identified with the Republican cause Commencing in the ranks of the party he quickly attained the position of chairman

We feel confident that Mr. Christensen will bring strength to any Republican ticket which may be named As a Congressman, he will fill the bill as perfectly as any man and in his hands the interests of the state will be fully conserved.5

Responding to this endorsement, Christensen told the press that his future was "in the hands of his friends" and pledged to "take off his coat and put up the best fight" he knew how to make.6 Throughout the summer he campaigned across the state, seeking support for his challenge toJoseph Howell.7 In an attempt to blunt criticism from some party regulars Christensen emphasized his past support and allegiance to the party. In August he joined with other progressives to form a Taft for President Club, declaring that he "believed in the national Republican platform" and desired to see Taft elected.8

On the eve of the convention Christensen opened his headquarters, saying that he was "confident of victory." Noting that he had received support from all over the state and particularly from several prominent Republican women, Parley predicted that he would go into the balloting with a measure of strength that would "astonish" political observers.9

Despite these claims, several parliamentary maneuvers prior to the opening of the convention demonstrated his true strength to be minimal. The convention's committee on organizations sought to have the balloting for congressman held early in the proceedings. Christensen opposed this move, confident that a later balloting time would force Howell "to make good on many commitments he has made to various delegates in the state." Believing that Howell had no intention of honoring those commitments unless absolutely forced to do so, Christensen reasoned that if he could prolong the balloting it would work to his own advantage.10

The committee, an overwhelming majority of whom supported Congressman Howell, opted to hold the voting early in the convention Christensen's inability to win this first test of strength demonstrated that his support was weak; thus, the procedural defeat proved a major setback to his congressional bid. The balloting itself was merely a formality as Christensen was able to muster only 135 votes, approximately 24 percent of the total votes cast.11 As was the case in 1906 Christensen's strength lay in the rural counties, and his inability to make serious inroads into Howell's strength in the more populous areas was a major factor in his defeat.

The Telegram summarized the events of the convention by saying "the machine slate went through like a well oiled bullet."12 The Tribune added the opinion that Parley P. Christensen should realize by now that his political future lay "in immediately, but not affectionately, shaking the Smoot big mitt."

Rather than accept the Tribunes advice, Christensen continued to call for reform while taking an active part in the affairs of the Republican party He now turned his attention to the Salt Lake County Republican convention held later in the month While not aspiring to any elected office, Christensen participated in the proceedings and was able to convince the convention to add several planks of "vital importance" to the party platform."13 He took advantage of a chaotic situation at the convention to emerge as an important opinion molder. The Deseret News noted:

Through the disintegration of organization, Parley P Christensen loomed up as a new floor leader. His motions came frequently at first, then more frequently One early in the afternoon reversing the chairman, carried with a whoop of approval. Finally as the new lines of power were formed, Parley P brought out the fact that he had tried to get planks in the platform but had been turned down by the committee which had brought in only what he termed a few "glittering generalities". He asked for a reconsideration of the platform. The motion passed vehemently He asked that his planks go in, and this motion passed also with vehemence. 1 4

The planks of importance to Christensen dealt with a number of social and governmental reforms. One called for stronger legislation to assure the safety and protection of miners and smelter workers, certainly in harmony with his earlier activity in behalf of such causes. Another called for the enactment of legislation setting up police and fire commissions in first class cities. A third resolution sponsored by Christensen commended the "work of the juvenile court system as established and maintained by the Republican administration" and pledged further support for this work as well as an "increase of facilities for industrial training and for the establishment of a school for girls."15

Of all the proposed amendments to the platform the most important to Christensen dealt with the establishment of a direct primary system of nomination in Utah. Christensen convinced the delegates to adopt a resolution calling for a primary election law and pledging Republican "legislative nominees to work for the enactment of the same."16 As one who had realized only limited success with a convention system of nominating candidates, Christensen also favored a means whereby the control of delegate selection could be a more open and equitable process. At the same time, he probably viewed the direct primary as the only possible means of challenging the power of the Smoot machine. In any event, these reforms became the foundation of his political faith.

While no direct evidence exists concerning Smoot's attitude toward Christensen's efforts, it is likely that he found them objectionable. Smoot was particularly opposed to the enactment of a direct primary law because he believed that it had been a failure where it had been tried and that it was the "most expensive law for men running for office that was ever conceived."17 Left unsaid was a recognition that such a change might well lessen the influence of his forces in the party Again Smoot and Christensen found themselves in conflict over issues of Republican party policy, and this contention increased as events unfolded.

Christensen's actions at the 1908 county convention demonstrate both his commitment to social and political reform and his belief that the Republican party was the best vehicle to achieve that goal All of the resolutions he sponsored lauded past Republican successes and urged the party to build upon that foundation for future reform. Simultaneously, the actions of the delegates demonstrate that, despite some setbacks, Christensen had influence with many of his fellow Republicans when they perceived that he was seeking worthy goals and legitimate objectives for the party.

While Christensen was unsuccessful in his personal political plans, the Republicans won a strong victory in the general election, sweeping federal, state, and local offices as well as both houses of the state legislature. Christensen believed that the party platform should serve as a guide for legislation enacted by the legislature. Others shared this belief, and the 1909 legislature provided another showdown between the Smoot machine and its opponents within the Republican party.

A goal of many Utah Republicans was the enactment of statewide prohibition. Naturally this issue appealed to most Mormons because of the abstinence required by the Word of Wisdom. Sentiment in favor of prohibition had been growing, and as one scholar has observed: "The evidence indicates that the Republican legislature was not officially bound to enact a prohibition measure, but the members were certainly bound as individuals to give Utah a prohibition law of some sort that year."18

A bill calling for statewide prohibition was introduced in the legislature byJoseph J. Cannon. Because he was a devout Mormon, the son of prominent church leader George Q. Cannon, and a staunch Republican, the legislator believed the church would support his measure. Reed Smoot and his associates, however, viewed the passage of the Cannon bill as a major threat to the Republican party. Smoot told his ally E H Callister that the passage of such a law would "bring a great deal of trouble" to the party and raise doubts about the value of promises made "to the men who assisted in making it possible to win the last county election."19 Smoot also believed that the passage of a prohibition law would strengthen the avowedly anti-Mormon American party in the coming election. More important, he feared that the prohibition issue could cost him the financial aid and electoral support of many gentiles, a major element of the coalition he had been building for several years. 20

Smoot's attitude toward prohibition is significant in understanding the political situation then existing in Utah. Maintaining that he was as strict about adhering to the Word of Wisdom as anyone, he feared that enactment of statewide prohibition would ultimately reduce his control and influence over the party apparatus.21 In the end Smoot prevailed Exercising his influence through senate allies, he succeeded in having the Cannon bill defeated in the Utah State Senate on January 11, 1909.

Reaction to the defeat of the bill was swift and emphatic. On February 25 a mass meeting was held at the Salt Lake Theatre for the purpose of organizing a statewide prohibition movement. Representing widespread support from Mormons and non-Mormons alike, over two thousand people attended the lengthy meeting.22 Although the purpose of the meeting was to support prohibition, it is apparent that many of those in attendance came not because they believed in abstinence from alcohol but because they wished to strike a blow against the Smoot machine.

One such individual was Parley P. Christensen. When a resolution in favor of prohibition was introduced, Christensen spoke in the affirmative. Saying that he spoke not as a defeated political candidate nor as a Mormon nor even as a prohibitionist, he told the delegates that the issue was whether control of the Republican party rested with the people or with a handful of self-appointed leaders:

Whoever in the world gave them the right to deliver the Republican party into the hands of the liquor interests? Whoever in the world gave them the authority to make the members of the Republican party the defenders and apologizers of the liquor traffic Who gave the official organ of the Republican party the privilege of denouncing staunch Republicans as traitors to their party because they dared defend prohibition?

There is no use speaking in riddles. Let us come out into the open and denounce these self-constituted leaders who are trying to make the Republican party the party of the Bourbons

The rank and file of the Republican party has the right to say what the Republican legislature shall do, not a bunch of leaders who have gotten into the habit of making that legislature do whatever they damn please, and to hell with the party. . . , 23

Smoot, incensed over the actions of the mass meeting, wrote to E H Callister that "it was very evident during the whole proceedings that the prohibition question was only a secondary issue, the main issue being the defeat and disruption of the Republican organization."24 He further advised Callister that it "would be a mighty good idea. ... to keep all the data" concerning the actions of the men who were using prohibition as a way of opposing him, for "no doubt we will want to use it sometime in the future."25

As the 1910 election approached, Christensen again became a candidate for the Republican congressional nomination. In July the Salt Lake Sunday Times reported that "friends of Parley P. Christensen are urging him to get into the Congressional race again."26 The paper, alluding to his past difficulties in securing nomination, editorialized that perhaps these individuals were not truly his friends or they would not encourage him to enter a race in which he surely would suffer defeat Undoubtedly, Christensen knew his chances were slim, but nonetheless he felt the challenge should be made In a letter to his sister he explained his decision:

The political situation is extremely cloudy as is usually the case in Utah, but it is my purpose in this campaign to try and assist.. in clarifying the political atmosphere I am going to strike from the shoulder and talk right out in meetings I intend to go to the Ogden State Convention and fight from the opening for a platform along progressive lines.27

Christensen officially announced his candidacy in a letter to Sam Raddon, editor of the Park Record, saying that he was entering the race "not entirely with the hope of being elected but rather as a political duty—as a protest against the present political regime."28 He further noted that since the state convention was less than thirty days away, the selection process would have to be completed within that short period of time The Smoot machine, he contended, had ignored rank and file Republicans as well as the state committee, because these "bosses and bosslets" intended to dominate the selection process and make the decisions on who would be the candidates.29

Calling the state "poor old boss-ridden Utah," Christensen assured Raddon that while he had hoped that someone else would emerge to challenge the machine, it seemed likely that no other candidate was on the horizon:

Now, why this condition in Utah? What is the trouble politically? It is simply this: the Republican party in Utah is so thoroughly boss-ridden that all the vitality is crushed out of its adherents He who has ideas of his own, who has political independence and integrity is not wanted The young men of Utah in the Republican party are not privileged to choose their own paths to political preferment—there is at present, but one route and that leads through the private office of the boss. The test of availability is "Will he take orders?" Individual initiative is despised rather than encouraged. And all the political machinery is operated to that end.30

While the prospects for success seemed as remote in this election as in the past, there appeared to be a more positive response in the press toward Christensen and his challenge. The Park Record characterized the challenger as "a fighter . . . whose efforts are in the right direction" and stated that "a few more with the same convictions will set aside the necessity of a third party, and restore the politics of Utah back to the people and out of the hands of the Federal bunch." 3 1 Conceding that the chances of defeating Howell were doubtful, the Record nevertheless called on local residents to support Christensen's candidacy. Th e Salt Lake Sunday Times also lauded his action and noted:

On a smaller stage in this state Mr Christensen is making the same fight that is being made by Roosevelt, LaFollette, Dolliver, Cummins, Bristow, and the other Insurgent Republicans in the nation It is understood he will make his fight wholly within the Republican Party A ray of light shines through this revolt in the Republican party of Utah. It is another proof that in spite of all handicaps the splendid manhood in this young state is in harmony with the moral and political awakening of the nation.32

Encouraged by the favorable treatment of his candidacy in the press, Christensen told the Park Record that he had received letters endorsing his position "from all parts of the state and they all ring out the same sentiment: 'What we need is leaders not bosses.'"33 The challenger noted that some had raised the cry that his candidacy was stirring u p trouble in the party, attempting to equate criticism with disloyalty Calling this assertion wrong, Christensen declared:

Discussion within the party cannot but produce good results Without it we cannot grow. The bosses would have us be-still, stand-still, stand-pat, be reactionary; but, as well try to stop the flow of Niagara as to halt the progress of the Republican party or gag the Progressives therein Honest criticism of party measures or censure of bossism is not disloyalty to the party Those who do so are its true friends, they aid in its growth and promote its progress If we were all "stand-patters" the party would have no growth

The reactionary press is fond of saying that the Progressives are lending aid and comfort to the enemy—the Democrats The very reverse is true. The success of our party in the future lies in the path of Progressive Republicanism It is giving new hope to the voter and new life to the party ....

The Progressives are also accused by the reactionaries of drifting towards, and ultimately into the Democratic party. Not by any means! The chasm is wider between the Progressives and the Democratic party than between the Stand-patter and the Democrat. . . . The hope of the nation is in Progressive Republicanism.34

Christensen identified three objectives for himself and Progressive Republicans in Utah. First, eliminate control of the party by an oligarchy and put it into the hands of a wider group of Republicans. Second, draft a state platform with strong, progressive planks "upon which a stand-patter cannot comfortably ride." Third, "center upon the most vital issue" by securing a direct primary nominating law With such a law, he argued, progressives would "increase the power and promote the opportunity of the individual elector" to have a real say in the affairs of government as well as the affairs of his own political party.35

Christensen entered the state convention convinced that his reform proposals were gaining acceptance by rank and file Republicans. The balloting in the race for the congressional nomination told a different story Howell was the overwhelming choice of the convention for renomination, receiving 484 l/% votes and carrying every county but four. Christensen received 69 votes, the bulk of which came from the counties in which he had been traditionally strong. His vote total might have been higher, but in the late days of the campaign, Harry Joseph, a Republican legislator, entered the contest and polled 71 V2 votes. Although Joseph was not a progressive, he did succeed in splitting the anti-Howell votes.36

Besides the congressional nomination, the convention had another important purpose for Christensen. True to his previous pledge, he sought to convince the delegates that they should add a plank to the party platform calling for the direct primary. A resolution to that effect was introduced by Charles Hollingsworth, a delegate from Weber County, but it was defeated by a decisive majority.37

Prior to the voting Christensen took to the floor in support of the resolution. Recalling the Salt Lake County convention two years earlier when he had placed such a resolution in the platform, he declared that the Republican party should give the people the right to choose their nominees. His remarks represent one of the most complete statements of his political philosophy at the time and merit quoting at length. He told the convention:

If there is anything that indicates the advanced growth of the Republican party, that indicates that the Republican party is at the vanguard of the people's advancement along economic lines, it is the fact that the Republican party throughout the country has been demanding and enacting into law a system whereby the people have had an opportunity to nominate their candidates by what we call direct nomination.

Mr Chairman, why should we in Utah pause? Why should we hesitate to step up into the front ranks of political and economic advancement and adopt a direct primary system We have bosses, we have organizations, we have machines [that] have accomplished for us what we have prayed for—Republican victory At times my good friends we have gone beyond that We have unmade and made candidates It is not the function of any political organization to say who is to be the nominee of the people upon a political ticket And my garments are not entirely free I have taken my part as a subordinate in the local political organization but in the name of Theodore Roosevelt and President Taft, in the name of the political condition that is bound to come in Utah I ask you to calmly consider the idea of giving the people a clean cut, fair deal 38

In the balance of the speech Christensen talked frankly about political conditions in the state, discussing how a handful of men could dominate a party caucus and admitting that all, including himself, had participated in such activities. His remarks were lengthy, and much of his impact was lessened because it was late and the delegates were anxious to leave The thrust of the speech was undoubtedly directed at Reed Smoot, though Christensen was careful to speak respectfully of the senator who was presiding over the proceedings Smoot later recorded in his diary Christensen's failure to convince the delegates:

Parley P. Christensen, the insurgent, spoke for the plank. He was long winded and the convention tried to call him down I would not stand for it and gave him all the time he wanted. He talked for over and hour and killed himself He wanted to be gagged but I wouldn't allow it 39

Christensen's defeat for the congressional nomination and his inability to sway his fellow delegates to the cause of the direct primary represented his last major effort in the Utah GOP. Although he remained a Republican for another two years, offering himself again as a congressional candidate in 1912, he ultimately bolted to support the Progressive party and its standard bearer, Theodore Roosevelt, a man he had long admired In later years Christensen told reporters he had remained a Republican until he realized he "couldn't sincerely play the Republican game" and decided he "had no business in the party."40

In many ways Christensen's career paralleled that of numerous others in Utah and throughout the country who initially felt the Republican party was the most viable mechanism for achieving social and political reform but who later sought other political alliances, particularly the Progressive party in 1912. Christensen's progression from solid Republican to Bull Moose Progressive is understandable since he had always tended toward reform movements. Also, he was greatly influenced by the progressive movement among his fellow Republicans nationwide. As a lawyer who traveled extensively and as an official of several fraternal organizations, Christensen came into personal contact with progressive sentiment in other regions as well as his own.

A closer look at some of his earlier support for regular Republicanism might help to place his evolution as a progressive into focus. For example, Christensen was deeply impressed by William McKinley and at the time of his assassination lauded the deceased president as a great leader and a man who was "loved by his colleagues and the American people." Although support for McKinley might seem odd from a progressive, historian H. Wayne Morgan sees the McKinley presidency as a transitional period where the man "stood not as the last old-fashioned chief executive nor as the first modern one, but as something in between, trying through his policies of conservative conciliation to ease his country and his people into the new position their responsibilities demanded."41 As a conciliator and harmonizer, Morgan asserts, McKinley ameliorated the "diverse forces that disturbed the country in the tumultuous nineties" and restored "the breaches in the Republican party" that had occurred as a result of this difficult period.42

Morgan's assessment may be helpful in understanding this phase of Parley P. Christensen's political career. Like the man he admired in his early career, the Utahn may have sought conciliation and amelioration during a period of transition from the battles of earlier times and the creation of a progressive Republican party, while realizing that challenges of the twentieth century made new approaches necessary Certainly his activities in the first decade of this century seem to support this conjecture. The next decade saw a continuing development in his commitment to social and political reform. Although he no longer believed the Republican party was the best vehicle to achieve those goals, moving as he did to the political left, Christensen's early support for economic and political reform would remain as hallmarks throughout the rest of his public career. 43

NOTES

Mt. Sillito is archivist and professor of library science at Weber State University, Ogden.

1 Jan Shipps, "Utah 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. A brief account of the Christensen nomination and candidacy for president in 1920 is found in John Sillito’s "Parley P. Christensen, 1869—1954: A Political Biography" (M.A. thesis, University of Utah, 1977).

2 Parley P. Jenson, "History of the Elks Lodge of Utah," LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City; Salt Lake Herald, August 13, 1903, p. 4. University of Utah Daily Chronicle, March 18, 1902, p. 324, and September 30, 1902, p. 3. Utah Education Review 8 (February 1915): 23.

3 Esther Christensen Cronholm, interview with author, Salinas, California, August 1973.

4 Intermountain Republican, May 5, 1908, p. 1.

5 Ibid., July 3, 1908, p. 1.

6 Ibid.

7 Ephraim Enterprise, August 27, 1908, p. 8, and September 3, 1908, p. 1; Logan Republican, August 8, 1908, p. 4.

8 Intermountain Republican, August 29, 1908, p. 1.

9 Salt Lake Tribune, September 15, 1908, p. 2.

10 Salt Lake Tribune, September 15, 1908, p. 4.

11 Salt Lake Tribune, September 16, 1908, p. 5.

12 Salt Lake Telegram, September 16, 1908, p. 3.

13 Deseret News, September 30, 1908, p. 1.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Reed Smoot to Edward H. Callister, February 8, 1909, Edward H. Callister Papers, LDS Church Archives.

18 Bruce T. Dyer, "A Study of the Forces Leading to the Adoption of Prohibition in Utah" (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1958), pp. 28-29.

19 Smoot to Callister, January 10, 1909, Callister Papers.

20 Merrill, "Reed Smoot," p. 219. Smoot to Callister, January 15, 1909, Callister Papers.

21 Ibid. Smoot to Callister, February 8, 1909, Callister Papers.

22 Deseret News, February 24, 1909, p. 1.

23 Ibid.

24 Smoot to Callister, March 8, 1909, Callister Papers.

25 Ibid.

26 Salt Lake Sunday Times, July 23, 1910, p. 2.

27 Christensen to Elenora Christensen Lamiman, September 10, 1910, original in the possession of Charlotte Lamiman, Potomac, Maryland.

28 Park Record, August 27, 1910, p. 1.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., September 3, 1910, p. 4, and September 10, 1910, p. 2.

32 Salt Lake Sunday Times, September 3, 1910, p. 1.

33 Park Record, September 17, 1910, p. 1.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Salt Lake Herald-Republican, September 26, 1910, p. 1.

37 Salt Lake Trìbune, September 26, 1910, p. 1.

38 Ibid.

39 Reed Smoot Diary, September 26, 1910, Reed Smoot Papers, Harold B. Lee Library, Special Collections, Brigham Young University, Provo.

40 San Francisco Examiner, August 18, 1923, p. 1.

41 H. Wayne Morgan, William McKinley and His America (Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1963), p. 527.

42 Ibid.

43 the author’s "A Utahn Abroad: Parley P. Christensen’s World Tour, 1921-23," Utah Historical Quarterly 54 (1986): 345-57.