Scott amendment,
approval of anti-polygamy constitution in return for statehood.
January
1, 1887 to John Irvine, Washington, D.C.
New England papers
Buy favorable articles
Your description [letter of December
20] of the interview … with Mr. Charles F.
Fowler was very interesting, and we were impressed with the force of his
views respecting the publication of articles in
our interest in the new England papers, especially to divert the attention
of Senator Edmunds
by giving him a fire in the rear … We should certainly be in favor
of giving the utmost publicity to our side in the way Mr. Fowler suggests,
particularly when, as you assure us, it can be inserted at a low price—perhaps
only a small advance on the regular advertising rates.
Not
necessary to promote polygamy
It is not necessary that we should
advocate polygamy. That is not our business. Plural marriage was never designed
for wicked people … There are comparatively few even of the Latter-day
Saints who are in a condition to practice this system in the manner God
designs, and how much less the people who do not believe the principles
of the gospel!
Marshal
Exum on John W. Young's trail
… Deputy marshal Exum left here
for Washington some days since, and it is suspected that the object of his
visit in part at least, is to embarrass and perhaps arrest Brother John
W. Young and yourself, if he can find you. A dispatch was sent to Brother
Caine to warn him …
John Taylor, George
Q. Cannon
First Presidency
January 1, 1887
to Joseph F. Smith
Cleveland
condemns Dalton murder
[Dalton murder affidavits to be printed in pamphlet
form and sent to congressmen, senators.] We understand that President
Cleveland condemns it and has expressed pleasure that Marshal Dyer feels
as he does concerning it.
John Taylor, George
Q. Cannon
January
3, 1887 to John Henry Smith
Form
of rebaptism
The only form of baptism of which
we know anything, is given by the Lord in the Book of Covenants to his church.
That form has never been changed that we know of. It [can] be reasonably
supposed, that the Lord in giving it, considered it sufficient. Where
people are baptized a second or third time, it is the form that should be
used.
Coalville
co-op
[Complaints are made about W.
W. Cluff's co-op at Coalville.]
John Taylor
January
5, 1887 to Bishop Preston
Milk
contract
[Re: Samuel
H. B. Smith's complaint on milk
business] … what have you to say respecting it, and is he entitled
to any compensation for the withdrawing of the contract from him for supplying
milk …
John Taylor
January
8, 1887 to James Jack
BB&C
payments
Yours of 7th asking how
you shall apply the 15,000 which has been handed to you by Brother George
Reynolds, secretary and treasurer of the Bullion Beck and Champion Mining
Co. We think that you had better cancel the following notes: 3 of April
10, 1884 for $200 each; 1 of April 22, 1886 for $500.65; 1 of July 3, 1886
for $6,500; 1 of August 10, 1886 for $3,000; 1 of October 25, 1886 for $885.65
and the recording of mortgage for $10,000. After canceling these with their
interest apply the balance on the note for $10,000 given September 22, 1886.
Please inform us after doing this what amount will be still due from the
company.
John Taylor
January
8, 1887 to Elder Thomas Memmott, Scipio
Ordination form
[Re: Yours of December 23 to Franklin D. Richards about ordaining deacons.
Regret the issue has been source of division.] The form which you say
was used in ordaining the young deacon the second time, to the effect
that "We place our hands upon your head and confer the Aaronic priesthood
upon you and ordain you a deacon" is wrong form, and it is improper to
use such language, and to bestow the Aaronic Priesthood in this manner
in ordaining a deacon.
If you will consult the
Book of Mormon, the 3rd chapter of the Book of Moroni found upon p. 609
you will find the manner in which the disciples in ancient days ordained
priests and teachers, and you will see how simple that form is; and of course
if this form was sufficient to confer the authority of a priest or a teacher
upon a man it would be equally sufficient to confer the office of a deacon.
You will see also that the teachings there as to the manner in which those
officers were ordained agrees with the instructions of the Lord upon this
same subject through the Prophet Joseph in Doctrine and Covenants 20:57–60.
John Taylor
January 8, 1887 to Elder James H. Martineau, Pima,
Arizona
Ordination of high
priests
[Re: ordination of high priests.
Names to be submitted by stake president and high council] If the First
Presidency approve of their ordination, the names should then be submitted
to the quarterly conference of the stake, and if voted for by the conference
they can then be ordained.
John Taylor, George
Q. Cannon
January 12, 1887 to President Thomas E. Ricks
Card, Zundell, and
Hendricks son looking for refuge in Mexico and Canada
[Re: Yours of 8th alluding to harassmen.] In view of all this, we have
endeavored to secure a place of refuge in Mexico; but have been greatly
embarrassed there by a variety of circumstances, and the results, until
quite lately, were unsatisfactory. We also counseled Brother Card and
Brother Zundell and one of the sons of Brother William D. Hendricks to
make a trip into British Columbia with a view of searching out a suitable
place or places there …
This last movement for obvious reasons
was made very quietly and so as not to attract attention. It is still our
wish that it should not be agitated and given to great publicity. We have
counseled Brother Card to take the necessary steps to form a colony in that
region if a sufficient number of brethren could be found who would like
to go there. [Contact him in Mexico] there is room for 100 families …
John Taylor, George
Q. Cannon
January 13, 1887
to Samuel H. B. Smith
Milk
contract
Bishops Preston
and Burton say that it never entered into their heads to injure you or anyone
else in supplying themselves with the milk needed for public hands. They
state there never has been any contract, to their knowledge, giving you
the exclusive right to furnish milk to the tithing office. You had the privilege,
however, they say, of furnishing milk as it might be needed, at prices agreed
upon from time to time … [long letter].
January 13, 1887
to Bishop I. E. D. Zundell, Washakie Indian farm
Washakie
Indian farm
[Re: Washakie articles of incorporation.]
$2,500
for Mexico land
January 17, 1887 to Erastus Snow, and Moses Thatcher
[Enclosed are five $500 drafts ($2,500) as partial land payment
(for land in Mexico).]
Milk
contract
January 19, 1887 to Samuel H. B. Smith
As I do not now remember having made any contract with you
personally or in connection with the Presiding Bishopric, I would be pleased
to have you inform me what that [milk]
contract was for which you refer to, and if you have the same please send
me a copy of it …
John Taylor
BB&C
payment
January 22, 1887
to James Jack
Brother H[iram]. B. Clawson advises me that the mortgage of John
Beck's property must be lifted immediately in order to accomplish that which
we have in view in his behalf. [Clawson] has not received any payments on
his last sales of ore and is not in funds to pay the mortgage which I understand
is about $16,500. Consult with him, and let him have this amount or less
as he may need. He has been advised to pay to you as much of this as he
possibly can out of the sales of ore, after reserving enough to meet the
current expenses of the mine.
John Taylor
BB&C
payment
$58,635 paid from ZCMI safe
January 25, 1887
to James Jack
In your report of the amounts taken from ZCMI vault, we find
the following entries: August 26 John Beck's note $3,000 (all John Beck
notes); September 18 $5,000; October 9 $2,500; November 3 $3,500 and $3,150;
January 13 $1,200; January 20$ 2,300 (mortgage) January 22 $16,500 (mortgage).
These are the amounts that you report as having paid out of the safe. There
may be, moreover, other amounts which you have advanced on his a/c from
other funds. We would like [a complete statement].
John Taylor
Hymn
book committee
January 25, 1887 to George Lambert, Deseret News
[Re: Yours of the 19th about a proposed hymn book] in which you inform me
that Brothers Beesley, Daynes and Griggs have been a committee to arrange
the tunes for our hymns … This is well as far as it goes; but as Brothers
George Careless and Evan Stephens have considerable to do with musical matters
and are teachers of singing, we think it would be proper for them also to
have some voice in this business …
John Taylor
January
27, 1887 to John T. Caine and John W. Young
Scott
amendment
Approve if principle
not compromised
In answer to your
dispatch asking about the Scott amendment we sent you the following. "Urge
Scott amendment and any other amendment which will defeat object of the
enemy." On Monday the 24th inst. another dispatch was sent to the following
effect: "We have no change to make in our policy. No surrender of principle.
[John] Sharp's former course not approved."
In view of the importance of all the
questions involved in our policy, it is proper that something definite should
be written to you that you may have some idea how far to go without committing
yourselves in every direction that cannot be sustained by the people. Conversation
with Brother [Charles W.] Nibley has called
for a more serious consideration of the terms of the Scott amendment.
Scott
gives relief from Tucker, but …
At the time the reply was sent to
you upon that subject, we felt that any amendment that would give us relief
from the Tucker bill, might be urged by our friends. Brother Nibley informs
us that there is danger if we do not accept the terms of the Scott amendment
that we may be suspected of not acting in good faith and that our position
may be made worse as a consequence.
Brother Penrose had given the Scott
amendment some consideration and learning from Brother Nibley something
concerning the situation of affairs wrote a full letter to me upon the subject
in which he takes the ground that we can accept the Scott amendment without
compromising any principle of our religion and still act with good faith
to the government. His point is that neither belief in "bigamy" nor "polygamy"
but as Brother Nibley is returning to Washington and he heard Brother Penrose's
argument and views on this point we were spared the necessity of writing
them in detail as he can explain them fully to you.
Acceptable
if imposed by Congress
We cannot frame a constitution ourselves
of this character; for it will not do for us, after enduring what we have
for the sake of our religion and its principles, to put ourselves in a position
where our words and actions may be construed into a surrender of that for
which we have ever contended. Better for us to continue to suffer from the
attacks of our enemies and their persecution than for us to occupy a position
which we cannot honorably, openly and successfully defend against all attacks
that may be made upon us. At this day we cannot afford to put ourselves
in an equivocal attitude upon this question or in one that might have the
appearance of being false.
Anti-polygamy
consitution possible
If Congress should frame a provision
to the effect that "bigamy and polygamy shall be forever forbidden," then
the proposition might be carefully considered. It would present a very different
phase for Congress to make such a provision or condition than it would for
us to step forward and propose it.
Not
settled
Whether we could even then accept
such a constitution is a grave question—a question, however, which
we cannot decide upon when it is presented to us. With love to yourselves
and all with you …
John Taylor, George
Q. Cannon
P.S. This letter appears in two handwritings
in order to finish in good time for the mail.
[n.d.] p. 483
to James Jack
Telegram:
Go slow on Scott amendment
Please send the following telegram
in cipher to John W. Young c/o Hon. John T. Caine: "Go slow on Scott amendment,
have written you today. James Jack"
Your brother,
John Taylor
January 27, 1887 to William Budge
Lobby
funding
$1,500 for Idaho
[Re: Yours of the 20th to C. Williams about Boise] You say "If we could
only get the help we talked of, I believe the conditions are now more
favorable than they would have been earlier." &c. If the amount we sent
you yesterday could be used in that direction, and $1,500 more would gain
the point, it would be much cheaper in the end, than resorting to litigation,
for it would save the necessity of it. If you have any hope in the plan
that was talked over by you while in the city, it might be well to use
the $500 as a part of "the help" you speak of instead of using it as a
retainer.