The Miles Case
Another cause of agitation, and one that went a long way towards congressional action of the severest nature against the practice of plural marriage, was the case of John H. Miles. This case ran a course of about three years, having been carried before the supreme court of the United States. Miles was arrested in October, 1878, on complaint of Carrie Owen Miles, his wife. She accused Miles of having married Emily Spencer of St. George, on the same day, and a little before her own ceremony was performed. She was not present at the ceremony, but testified that during a reception held that evening Emily Spencer was referred to as Mrs. Miles. The case was taken before Judge Emerson, in the Third district court, in April, 1879, where it was conceded that the ceremony had been performed between John H. Miles and Carrie Owen, and the defense objected to the testimony of the complainant on the ground that a wife could not testify against her husband. The marriage of Miss Spencer was not admitted. However, the evidence was taken and Miles was “found guilty” and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and serve a term of five years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of Utah which affirmed the decision, and the case was then taken to the supreme court of the United States. The end of the matter came in 1881, when the supreme court handed down a decision stating that an error had been committed in the trial court by permitting Caroline Owen Miles to give evidence against Miles, since the law in Utah provided that a wife could not legally testify against her husband, or a husband against his wife. The marriage with Emily Spencer not having been admitted, and not having been proved, was the only issue in the trial. The decision was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. The case was dropped, as the United States attorney felt that there could be no conviction. However, this case helped to stir the country to such a pitch that legislation was enacted repealing the Utah law.
Daniel H. Wells Before the Court
While the trial of John H. Miles was before the court, Caroline Owen Miles gave a purported description of the apparel worn by those who passed through the endowment house.[1] The prosecution attempted to show that such apparel was worn by those who went there to be married. Daniel H. Wells, who had performed the ceremony for Miles and Carrie Owen, was called to the stand and questioned by Attorney Van Zile, who asked him to describe the dress worn in that building. This he declined to do. Judge Emerson decided that the question was proper, and as the witness still refused, he was placed in the custody of the marshal, with instructions that he should appear in the court the next day, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.
Imprisonment of Daniel H. Wells
The next day, May 3, 1879, President Wells, with his attorney, appeared before Judge Emerson and stated his willingness to answer the questions, if they should be put in a proper way. The questions were put to him again, but purposely in such a way that he felt it his duty not to answer them. He declared that he was under sacred obligation to preserve secret what he was asked to reveal. The court insisted that he should answer, and the witness replied: “I consider a person who reveals the sacred ceremonies of the endowment house a falsifier and a perjurer; and it has been and is a principle of my life never to betray a friend, my religion, my country, or my God. It seems to me that this is sufficient reason why I should not be held in contempt.”
The judge held that the witness was in contempt for not answering, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for two days. President Wells was immediately placed in the hands of the United States marshal and taken to the penitentiary where he served his brief term of confinement.
A Public Protestation
The action of Judge Emerson caused great indignation, and the Latter-day Saints were aroused. A public demonstration in protest of the action was planned, and many people gathered from the surrounding counties as far north as Bear Lake and south as far as Juab. A procession of ten thousand formed and met President Wells at the Burton Farm, three miles south of the city, and marched through the streets to the tabernacle, which was thronged with people. The presence of the released prisoner was a signal for prolonged applause. Speeches were made, interspersed with music from several bands. As the procession marched through the city they carried banners with inscriptions among which were the following:
“If courts compel men to dishonor and forswear themselves, how can they expect perjurers to give truth in evidence?”
“We honor the law and its just administration, but we despise petty tyranny.”
“We will teach our children to be true to their country and their God; but to perjure themselves never! no never!”
“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we are answerable for them to our God.” —Thomas Jefferson.
“If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.” —Blackstone.
“God’s Law: Thou shalt not forswear Thyself; but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”
“Modern Law: Thou shalt forswear thyself, or go to prison.”
“When Free Masons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on Mormons; try the others first.”
“We venerate the Constitution, we honor the law, we respect the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary; we bow to the righteous mandates of the law, but we despise bigots, we execrate tyranny, and protest against intolerance from any source.”