The New Crusade.
What basis is there for this renewed fight against the Mormons? When Wilford Woodruff declared that he would advise the people to cease plural marriages, and when his advice was accepted by vote of the church, there were men living in Utah who were already in polygamy. Most of them were old men, but there were young and middle-aged men who had more than one wife. All through the government fight against polygamy these men had lived with their wives as far as they could in secrecy. Would they be likely to abandon their wives when peace had been received?
To the Mormons, marriage is one of the most sacred of their ordinances. It is solemnized by a priest in the name of God. It is "sealed" in heaven also and is to continue forever. The true Mormon cannot ignore the claims of his plural wife without being false to his vows and his God. No manifesto of Wilford Woodruff, no vote of conference, could annul a plural marriage or engage that any Mormon should cease to care for his plural wives. This fact was as well known by every non-Mormon in Utah in 1890 as it is today. It was understood by every gentile politician, by every representative of the government, by every minister in Utah, that polygamists had been all along secretly living with their polygamous wives. All knew that this would continue, yet all agreed that no further notice should be taken of the matter and polygamy should be left to die its natural death. That understanding reached, no further effort was made to arrest "cohabs." Polygamists lived openly with their wives and, as was expected, children were here and there born—in one instance, at least, we have heard of "twins." So matters stood from the close of 1890 for seven years. In 1897 we had a semi-centennial celebration of the arrival of the pioneer Mormons. In that "jubilee" Mormons and non-Mormons all joined heartily, including the ministers who have since become rabid anti-Mormons; including also the editor of the anti-Mormon paper who was so harmonious then that he delivered an address when the Brigham Young statue was unveiled, who was so inspired by the holy ghost or some other spirit (he is more familiar with other spirits) as to declare in his paper that the Mormons had founded the "new civilization." Yet at that very moment he and all non-Mormons in Utah knew that those who were in polygamy when "the manifesto" was issued, in 1890, had been living openly with their wives for seven years and that children were being born in some of the families. No objection was made, I repeat, until the Mormons, to stay the increase of public debt, began to fill important public offices with prudent men of their faith. There is no evidence that the church had anything to do with this. It was the work of men who owned property, and were anxious to protect it. That this is true is seen in subsequent political action. A majority of the Mormons are democrats. The democrats were rapidly getting control of the state. In the municipal election of Salt Lake last November the republicans elected their ticket over a known democratic majority of voters. Why? Because the republicans ran their canvass on the line of the anti-Mormon elections of a decade ago—the gentile democrat voted the republican ticket. That is, while the Mormons have kept the compact made when the people divided on national party lines, in 1891, the others have largely broken it and we have now the democratic and republican parties with the republican party working as an anti-Mormon party largely. The excitement in Washington over the fact that the republican Utah postmasters at Provo and Logan have been all along in the same boat with democratic Roberts is amusing because of the frantic efforts of men to show that they did not know that those men were old polygamists and had been living with their wives since the "manifesto" of 1890. Of course they knew it. No man could have lived in Utah since 1890 without knowing it. From 1890 until statehood came United States district attorney and marshal for Utah knew it, and yet so generally was it understood that the old condition was to be left to die of old age that those officers made almost no effort to disturb "cohabs." The postmasters in Provo and Logan were chosen because they were influential republicans, and their wives did not count—then. The anxiety over them now is that this excitement will defeat the hope of the republicans to carry Utah in 1900, and when this whole matter is analyzed it is found that the anti-Mormon agitators of Utah, with one exception, are republicans, and the exception is a democrat who, having most earnestly defended the Mormons ten years, was not recognized by them when they were distributing political offices. The Catholics in Utah are democrats and they have taken no part in this crusade. But the evangelical ministers and sects are republicans. The ministers have worked hard for 25 years to "save" the Mormons and yet have never "saved" one who was in good standing in his own church. When polygamy was given up, eastern interests in Utah missions fell, funds went low and the wolf was howling in the back yard. The politicians who had lived for years on salaries as government officers or later in state or city offices were in the same "fix"—they had to raise hell or starve—they did the first and, if I am not much mistaken, will do the second also or—"git out."