The Prophet and the Reformer
Page 64
25. Notwithstanding this advice, discussion continued to circulate about another potential exodus. For instance, the Deseret News editorialized that “vigorous prosecutions to break down [polygamy] are needless. They would but evoke retaliation, which might even grow to a destruction of the Utah settlements, and their abandonment for New Mexico, leaving Utah the desert that it was a quarter of a century ago.” See “The Mormon Offense,” Deseret News, December 6, 1871.
83
Young to Kane, March 5, 1872
in this letter, Young announced to Kane a new campaign to win state-
hood for Utah. A few weeks previously, on February 19, 1872, a constitu-
tional convention assembled in Salt Lake City, adopted a constitution, and
chose three delegates to take the statehood petition and constitution to
Washington, D.C.: George Q. Cannon (who carried this letter to Kane),
and two friendly non-Mormons: Thomas Fitch, one of Young’s attorneys,
and former territorial secretary Frank Fuller.1 The statehood petition failed
in Congress.
Young wrote this letter to Kane while still under house arrest. The
following month, however, Young’s indictments for lascivious cohabita-
tion and of being an accessory in the Yates murder, as well as many other
indictments against Latter-day Saints, were quashed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Clinton v. Englebrecht. That case began the previous
fall when Salt Lake City mayor Daniel Wells ordered all unlicensed liquor
establishments, which were refusing to pay the city’s high liquor taxes,
to be shut down.2 Alderman Jeter Clinton, a Mormon, executed the order
and requested that the marshal destroy a large quantity of liquor. 3 Paul
Englebrecht, a whiskey distiller, successfully sued in McKean’s court and
a non-Mormon jury found Clinton guilty “of malicious destruction of
property.”4 On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that McKean’s jury
selection process had not properly followed territorial law. The court stated
that jury selection by territorial courts had to abide by territorial law, not
1. Benjamin F.
Shearer, ed., The Uniting States: The Story of Statehood for the Fifty United States, vol. 3 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004), 1200–1203.
2. See Daniel H. Wells to Young, November 2, 1871, BYOF.
3. “Utah,” Cincinnati Daily Gazette, November 4, 1871, 1.
4. Turner, Pioneer Prophet, 367–368.
448
the prophet and the reformer
just federal law.5 The decision overturned 130 indictments and convictions
from McKean’s courtroom, including the indictments against Young.6
When news of the decision reached the Saints in mid-April, there was “gen-
eral satisfaction,” while some celebrated the ruling with a “high old time.”7 On
April 16, Robert Burton, one of the indicted defendants, was visited by his
local ward choir which “sang . . . some excellent music.”8 The decision, Young
wrote, was a “terrible blow to those who have so diligently sought our destruc-
tion.” He immediately applied for and was granted a writ of habeas corpus
allowing for his release from house arrest.9
In the featured letter to Kane, Young also reiterated his oft-made request
that Kane and his family visit Utah. Cannon carried this letter to Kane in
March 1872 and reported back to Young that Kane’s
health is poor, and he has been a prey to low spirits. His pleasure at seeing
me, and the repeated assurances which he gave me of how much good
your letter and my visit had done him, touched me and amply repaid me
for the journey. His estimable partner also repeatedly expressed the grati-
fication she had in the visit in view of the effect it had upon his health.
He has been feeling, he told me, that his work was about done, and there
was little left for him but to die. This has arisen partly from the reports
which had reached him about the condition of affairs at home and your
health, &c. When I left he told me that he had taken a new lease of life,
and would try and arrange his affairs to go out there.10
Source
Young to Kane, March 5, 1872, box 15, fd 6, Kane Collection, BYU.11
Retained copy is in Brigham Young Letterbooks, box 8, vol. 12, 988–990.
5. See Clinton v. Englebrecht, S. C. 13 Wall. 434-449, in Cases Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of the Unites States, book 20 (Rochester, NY: The Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Company, 1918), 659–663.
6. See Young to William Hooper and George Q. Cannon, April 20, 1872, BYOF; Alexander,
“Federal Authority Versus Polygamic Theocracy,” 85–100.
7. Young to Hooper and Cannon, April 20, 1872.
8. Robert Burton, diary, April 17, 1871, CHL.
9. See Brigham Young to Edward Young, April 24, 1872, BYOF.
10. Cannon to Young, March 22, 1872, BYOF.
11. The accompanying envelope is addressed to “Gen. Thomas L. Kane, Present. Per favor of Hon. Geo. Q. Cannon”.
Young to Kane, March 5, 1872
449
figure 83.1 George Q. Cannon, 1870s.
Source: Courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.
Letter
Salt Lake City, U. T.
March 5, 1872.
Gen. Thomas L. Kane.
Kane, McKean Co. Pa.
Dear Friend,
More than five months have passed away since last I had the plea-
sure of writing you from this city, months in which events have trans-
pired here of, to us, no ordinary character. You are, more or less, familiar
with these, and I will not rehearse them, but merely remark, that he
who did not perceive in those malicious proceedings, the same spirit of
hostility that persecuted the saints from the beginning, is an indifferent
observer.
Elder Cannon who bears this to you will say in some measure, with
what joy we would like to shake your friendly hand, and how very much
we appreciate your earnest, energetic, and disinterested labors in behalf
450
the prophet and the reformer
of the people of Utah. The business upon which Elder Cannon with his
colleagues Messrs Fitch & Fuller12 visit the capital, will, I am sure, meet
with your favor. The admission of Utah will be, to us, like emancipation
from worse than slavery, and, even if not admitted, a vigorous campaign
skilfully conducted will go far towards transferring the seat of war from
S. L. City to Washington, and change the character of the contest from
what it has been, to one of a more political character. [p. 2]
I believe too that our constitution will find favor with you,13 and we
hope it will with Congress, sufficiently so at least, without introduc-
ing obnoxious conditions that we could not accept, for, be assured, dear
General, the people of Utah will be true to their profession, and, not
even to gain their place in the nation, will they forfeit one iota of their
sacred obligations to high heaven.14
What do you think, General, of a people reputedly democratic, send-
ing as delegates two staunch republicans, and another, whose politics
are, simply to promote by all honorable means, the interests of the peo-
ple he represents?15 surely, with such a constitution and such delegates,
and with the aid of true friends, we may reasonably hope for succ
ess.
Utah’s resources can never be developed while she remains a
Territory subject to such a state of things as we have been and are now
passing through. Capitalists are chary of investing wealth with a com-
munity where bigoted and partizan Governors & Judges arrogate the
right of trampling law and order under their feet, not only rendering
12. F
itch had recently given a speech arguing that the federal efforts to arrest church leaders was the product of an alliance between Eastern industrial interests, Protestant zealots, and the federal government, “a nucleus of reformers and a mass of ruffians, a centre of zealots and a circumference of plunderer.” Thomas Fitch, The Utah Problem: Review of the Course of Judge James B. McKean, and An Appeal for the Surrender of Polygamy (Salt Lake: Salt Lake Herald, 1872); Deseret News, February 28, 1872, 2.
13. The Utah constitutional convention modeled the proposed constitution on Nevada’s 1864
constitution in hopes that Utah could replicate Nevada’s swift admission to the Union. The proposed constitution “included a provision inviting Congress to add an amendment containing an unspecified qualification for admission to the union. This obviously was an invitation to Congress to add a prohibition against polygamy; the catch was that the people of the Territory would have to approve it in an election,” which would be very unlikely to occur.
The proposed constitution died, “after a rancorous debate,” in the House Committee on Territories. Jean Bickmore White, The Utah State Constitution: A Reference Guide (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998), 5–6.
14. See Kane to Young, November 30, 1871, in which Kane responded to rumors that Mormons might duplicitously accept a constitution which banned polygamy.
15. Fitch and Fuller were the staunch Republicans, while Young referred to Cannon with the final clause. Orson F. Whitney, The Making of a State, 241.
Young to Kane, March 5, 1872
451
capital unsafe, but even life, as well as paralysing every industry and
prostrating business of every class. And perhaps no better argument
could be presented, for the law abiding character of our citizens and
their capability for self government than their patience and endurance
under such trying circumstances.16 [p. 3]
Dear Friend, it was truly heart cheering to me to receive your com-
munications delivered by the hand of Wm C. Staines17 and my son John
W. Young,18 both of whom are true to their friends.19
There is no one feeling more general among our people than their
good will towards yourself, and you can hardly imagine the “God bless-
ings” they have for you.
It may possibly be that you were a little disappointed with my move-
ments last January, but circumstances were such that I was compelled to
act from my own convictions.20
Would it be asking too much of you, health permitting, for yourself
and family to take a pleasure trip across the continent and pay us a visit
this summer? We can assure you a hearty welcome.21
Your past labors of love for us, your meditations in our interest, and
your counsels to me are sweet and precious, and let me say, that when
16. Y
oung may have been referring to Utah Governor George Woods’ support of a mining
bureau—the American Bureau of Mining Information for Utah—that would allow British mining interests special access to Utah’s resources. The mining bureau’s activities quickly became embroiled in scandal that involved Woods and territorial secretary George A. Black.
See “Governor, Manager, and Lawyer,” Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star 36.34 (September 3, 1872), 565–566; Clarke C. Spence, British Investments and the American Mining Frontier, 1860–1901 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1958), 45–47.
17. It is unclear which letter Staines carried to Utah. In his November 9, 1871 draft letter of the November 9, 1871 to Young, Kane wrote “I am constrained to abstain from making even your trusty friend W. C. Staines the bearer of a letter.” Staines had visited Kane while serving in his capacity as an emigration and railroad agent. See Kane to Young, November 9, 1871; Blessing by Wilford Woodruff, April 10, 1871, William Staines Papers, CHL.
18. John W. Young carried Kane’s letter of November 30, 1871, to Utah (Kane to Young, November 30, 1871). From August 1871, John W. Young had been serving as the president and superintendent of the Utah Northern Railroad, in which capacity he often made trips to the East. See M. Guy Bishop, “Building Railroads for the Kingdom: The Career of John W. Young,” Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 1 (1980): 70–72.
19. See Kane to Young, November 9, 1871; Kane to Young, November 30, 1871.
20. In his November 30, 1871, letter, Kane had recommended that Young remain in hiding rather than face the legal charges against him. See Kane to Young, November 30, 1871.
21. When Cannon visited Kane, they discussed this possible visit of the Kanes to Utah. See Cannon to Young, March 22, 1872.
452
the prophet and the reformer
I perused your late letters, I felt in my heart, the spirit of the Gods is
with the General.
Before concluding I wish to impress upon your attention that in
George Q. Cannon you can place the utmost confidence. You will find
him sound and discreet, and possessed of excellent judgment.
Your affecionate friend,
As ever,
Brigham Young
84
Kane to Young, October 16, 1872
YoUng had long encouraged Kane to visit Utah, and his entreaties had accel-
erated in the early 1870s after the completion of the transcontinental railroad.
In April 1871, he wrote Kane, “there is not one among the thousands who
will cross the plains this season to whom the Latter-day Saints would more
cordially extend the hand of warm welcome.”1 In response, Kane told Young
in October 1871 that he intended to travel to Utah in preparation to write a
biography of Young.2 During a period of Kane’s ill health and depression in
March 1872, George Q. Cannon also urged him to visit Utah. Cannon told
Young that Kane would do so if he could have the “unrestricted opportu-
nity of enjoying your society,” which Kane surmised could only happen dur-
ing Young’s annual winter visit to St. George.3 In the following letter, Kane
announced his intention to visit Young during the winter of 1872–1873 to
work on his proposed biography. Kane never published such a biography, nor
does a draft exist among his papers. Nevertheless, the following year, news-
papers reported that Kane “is said to be engaged in writing the biography of
Brigham Young.”4
Kane penned the following letter a few weeks before the 1872 election.
Earlier that year, Kane had broken with the Republican Party and President
Grant over a variety of issues, including Grant’s views on the Latter-day Saints.
Cannon wrote Young that Kane had “resolved to throw himself into the Liberal
1. Y
oung to Kane, April 16, 1871.
2. Kane to Young, October 12, 1871.
3. Cannon to Young, March 22, 1872, BYOF.
4.“Literary Notes,” Leavenworth Weekly Times, August 21, 1873; Patriot, September 6, 1873, 2; and Cincinnati Commercial Tribune, August 1, 1873, 2.
454
the prophet and the reformer
Republican movement,” in an effort to “call the attention of the country to the
principles of the Constitution and revive within them a portion, at least, of that respect which is due to them.”5 At the Liberal Republican nationa
l convention
in May 1872, Kane helped secure that party’s nomination of his old friend
Horace Greeley.6 At Greeley’s request, Kane ran for Congress on the Liberal
Republican ticket, partly because he recognized that he had little chance of
success in his heavily Republican district. He also “stumped the State” for
Greeley, who also secured the nomination of the Democrats as well.7 Grant
handily defeated this coalition, winning all but six states in the presidential
election. Kane lost his congressional race, though his wife Elizabeth noted that
he had the “unexpected gratification personally, of carrying our own and the
neighboring counties where he is known.”8
Source
Kane to Young, October 16, 1872, box 40, fd 14, BYOF.
Letter
Kane, Octo. 16. ’72
My dear friend:
I write to inquire if it will be perfectly convenient for you to receive
my long deferred visit this winter. I wish to be received very quietly,
and dwell in unostentatious, I may say studious retirement, exempt
from intrusion; but I will not come if I cannot feel authorised to make a
generous demand upon your time.
I would not wish to bind you or myself to the performance of daily
[p. 2] literary work, by the “job”; but I wd. like to be so constantly near
you as to receive conveniently a hint, a suggestion, a “half hour” when-
ever you feel prompted to offer me such. My aim shd. be to record your
thoughts, not as I myself might elicit them by a mechanical catechism
5. G
eorge Q. Cannon to Young, May 8, 1872, BYOF.
6. Grow, Liberty to the Downtrodden.
7.“Death of General Kane: A Brave Soldier and Public Man Passes Away,” Philadelphia Press, December 27, 1883.
8. Elizabeth W. Kane, draft biographical sketch of Thomas L. Kane, December 20, 1873, Kane Collection, BYU.
Kane to Young, October 16, 1872
455
(for I could as well send you a phonographer with a list of Questions pre-
pared here, and save myself the journey) but in their first freshness and