The Supreme Court in the case Chisholm vs. the State of Georgia, had decided (1793) that an action did lie against the State of Georgia at a suit of a private plaintiff. The state however refused to appear, whereupon the Supreme Court proceeded, a year later, to give judgment against her by default in case she should not appear and plead before a day; whereupon there arose such a storm of protest, not only in Georgia, but in the other states as well, that the eleventh amendment was adopted exempting a state from being sued in the courts of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens subjects of any foreign state. Moreover, states are not suable in any event except with their consent;[[15]] and if a state waive its immunity, it may attach any conditions it pleases to its consent.[[16]] Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the Saints never attempted to bring Missouri before the United States courts. They could only have planted suit against the state by its consent, and if she consented, then under such conditions as she might be pleased to attach to that consent. Moreover, the Saints had the best of reasons for believing that Missouri would never consent.
As to suing their persecutors as individuals before the United States courts, as citizens of one state suing citizens of another, it is only necessary to remind the reader of the insuperable difficulties attending upon that procedure to convince him of the futility of such action. The expensiveness of the undertaking, and the extreme poverty of the exiles alone would be sufficient to bar such an undertaking; for every one knows how bitterly hard it is for the poor to set the judicial machinery of organized society in motion in their favor. Then there was the evident conspiracy entered into by the mobs of Missouri to defeat the ends of justice in respect of the Saints: mobs which an unfriendly governor had converted into a state militia; to which that same governor gave an order to expel from the state or exterminate the entire people; under which order said mob-militia did expel from the state some twelve thousand citizens, depriving them of their property and liberty without due process of law; and afterwards the state through its legislature sanctioned and applauded the actions of this mob-militia for the part it had taken in causing said expulsion—though attended by acts of unspeakable atrocity—by appropriating 200,000 dollars to meet the expenses of the mob-militia in carrying out the governor's illegal orders. After these crimes against the Constitution and laws of the state, against American institutions and the civilization of the age—after all this, I say, it is not difficult to understand how farcical would be any procedure before either the state or the federal courts in Missouri. By acts of perjury, in order to still further defeat the ends of justice and protect each other from the penalties due to their crimes, it would have been easy for the people of Missouri to defeat the ends of justice. And after having committed the crimes of murder and robbery; after having unlawfully expelled a whole people, numbering thousands, from their homes—of which the despoilers were then possessed—it is not to be believed that such characters would hesitate to suborn witnesses, commit perjury, or hesitate to do any other thing, however criminal, in order to escape the just punishment for their crimes.
The offense of the State of Missouri against the Saints was a denial of political as well as of civil rights. She had in her treatment of the Saints abdicated republican government. Her officers, including the chief executive of the state had violated the Constitution of the state in that they had entered into a wide-spread conspiracy to deprive the Saints of their liberty and property without due process of law; and in fact had deprived them of those rights by expelling them by force of arms from the state.
These were the wrongs the Saints had endured; this the nature of the crime of the state of Missouri against them, and it seems that for these things which they suffered there could be found no remedy; for, as already explained, a state could not be made party to a suit before the courts, either state or federal, without her consent; and it is a well settled principle of American law that "a suit nominally against an officer but really against a state to enforce performance of its obligation in its political capacity, will not lie." A state, therefore, could not be directly arraigned before the courts or any kind of tribunal for failure to enforce its political obligations; nor could it be indirectly so arraigned through its officers since such an arraignment would undoubtedly have been held to be but "nominally against the officers and really against the state;" hence void.[[17]] The only arraignment of the state that could be made was evidently at the bar of public opinion and sentiment, and this sentiment, unfortunately viciated by misrepresentations, was against the Saints. All things considered, then, there was little wisdom behind the recommendation of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Saints to prosecute their case before the Federal courts having jurisdiction in Missouri; and the suggestion that they apply to the justice and magnanimity of the state of the Missouri, borders upon mockery. However, Missouri did not escape the chastisement due to her many acts of predatory injustice upon the Saints; there was measured out to her more than four fold of that sorrow and affliction which she had perpetrated upon the Saints. She sowed to the wind in her conduct towards the Mormon people, she reaped the whirl-wind in the terrible experiences of more then ten years of border warfare, banditti rule, and her enormous sacrifice of blood and treasure in the Civil War; all of which is abundantly set forth in the Introduction to Volume III of this work.
The Mission of the Twelve to England.
The mission of the Twelve to England marks an epoch in the missionary experience of the Church. They undertook this mission in fulfillment of a commandment received of the Lord on the 8th of July, 1838, at Far West, Missouri, which revelation was given in answer to the question of the Prophet: "Show us thy will, O Lord, concerning the Twelve." In answer to that question the Lord directed that the several vacancies then existing in the quorum should be filled by the appointment of John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, and Willard Richards. "And next spring," said the revelation, "let them [the Twelve] depart to go over the great waters and there promulgate my gospel, the fullness thereof, and bear record of my name. Let them take leave of my Saints in the City Far West on the 26th day of April next, on the building spot of my house saith the Lord."[[18]]
Notwithstanding the fact that the Church had been expelled from the state of Missouri before the 26th day of April, 1839, a number of the Twelve accompanied by several of those who had been appointed to fill vacancies in the quorum, returned to Far West, held a meeting on the site of the Lord's house in the public square of that place, on the date appointed, sung some hymns, ordained those present who had been appointed to fill vacancies in the quorum, laid a corner stone of the Lord's house, took leave of a few of the brethren who were there, and thence started for foreign lands, stopping for a time en route at Nauvoo. Late in the summer of 1839 the Twelve began their departure, usually in pairs, for foreign lands. The work had already been introduced into England by the labors of Elder Heber C. Kimball and associates, Elder Orson Hyde of the quorum of the Twelve; also Elders Willard Richards, Isaac Russell, John Goodson, John Snyder; and Joseph Fielding, a priest. The mission of the Twelve to England as a quorum, however, established the work in the British Isles on a broader and more permanent basis, and thence forward the body religious was strengthened from this mission; and as much from the character as from the numbers of the British Saints.
The Mission of Orson Hyde to Palestine.
The mission appointed to Elders Orson Hyde and John E. Page, of the quorum of the Twelve, to Jerusalem, was second in importance only to that appointed to the rest of the Twelve to Great Britain. John E. Page utterly failed to fulfill his appointment, notwithstanding the frequent urging and reproofs of the Prophet. He never left the shores of America, and finally returned to Nauvoo to be severely censured for his lack of faith and energy. Orson Hyde, on the contrary, in the midst of many hardships, persevered in his journey to the Holy Land, until he succeeded in accomplishing that which had been appointed unto him. Elder Hyde it appears, was a descendant of the tribe of Judah;[[19]] and sometime after the Prophet had become acquainted with him, most probably in the year 1832, in the course of pronouncing a blessing upon him, said: "In due time thou shalt go to Jerusalem, the land of thy fathers, and be a watchman unto the house of Israel; and by thy hand shall the Most High do a great work, which shall prepare the way and greatly facilitate the gathering together of that people."[[20]] It was in fulfillment of this prediction upon his head that he had been called upon this mission to Jerusalem, to dedicate the land of Palestine by apostolic authority, preparatory to the return of the Jews and other of the tribes of Israel to that land of promise. This mission he fully accomplished. An account of his journey and of his beautiful and powerful prayer of dedication will be found in his letters published in this volume.[[21]]
The question will be asked, Has anything resulted from this mission to dedicate the land of Palestine to the return of the Jews and other tribes of Israel? The only answer is an appeal to facts, to events that have taken place since that prayer of consecration was offered up by this Apostle of the new dispensation of the Gospel, on the 24th of October, 1841.