"Horrible Massacre of Emigrants!!" The Mountain Meadows Massacre in Public Discourse

 
[p. 83]

CHAPTER X. 

The Mountain Meadows Massacre and its Resulting Investigation; Shadowy Glimpses of the Endowment House Rites and Atonement by Blood, Proven by Church Authority.

For a considerable time after arriving in the Territory I had disbelieved the frequent assertions I heard that the Mountain Meadows massacre was ordered by Mormon officials and was carried out by a militia force of Mormons led by John D. Lee.

The massacre of one hundred and thirty or more persons, among whom were gray-haired grandmothers, mothers, young daughters and sons, by members of a civilized and Christian race, was so revolting and showed such depravity and utter disregard of all religious restraint that I was loth to believe the assertions referred to.

Upon becoming acquainted with Stephen DeWolfe who, in 1860, was the editor of "Valley Tan," the first Gentile paper published in Utah, I expressed to him my disbelief of what I had heard asserted respecting the massacre. He replied that what I had heard was true; that he had carefully investigated the matter, and had published in the Valley Tan a true version of the crime. He subsequently gave me a copy of that paper, and the occurrences respecting the massacre therein stated were substantially the same as was afterward shown by the evidence in the first trial of John D. Lee. In an editorial he also asserted that the Mormons had perpetrated other horrible crimes, and that none of the participants had been prosecuted by the Mormon authorities. After the appearance of that editorial a committee of Mormons, of which Jeter Clinton, the police magistrate of Salt Lake City was spokesman, waited upon Mr. DeWolfe and demanded a retraction of what he had written. Mr. Clinton stated that unless the retraction was made he would not be responsible for the safety of Mr. DeWolfe, as the editorial had created great excitement among the people, and many threats of violence had been made against its author. The next editorial written  
[p. 84]
by Mr. DeWolfe after the demand to retract had been made upon him, and which met with his refusal, contained the following:

"The threats made against me for making statements which I, in common with almost every man in this valley not connected with the Mormon church, believe to be true, afford proof, if no other was found, of the correctness of all that I said about the insecurity of life here to such as fall under the ban of the Church authorities, and I have not a word of retraction to make of any line or paragraph which I have written on this subject; on the contrary, reiterate again my firm belief of the truth of all I have said, and take the risk of whatever consequences may result from a repetition of my former statement. In addition to that statement I will add that murder has been sanctioned from the pulpit of the Mormon tabernacle in this city, and there is incontestible proof that men have been murdered in this Territory whose death was deliberated about and decided upon in meetings over which a person holding a high position in the Mormon church presided. Neither do I fear the hierachial authorities' priestly curses when engaged in a cause that I believe just and righteous. Nor will threats or intimidation lead me to shrink from the performance of any known duty."

The next day after the committee had waited on Mr. DeWolfe, Arthur Stainer, a hunchback, bookkeeper for Brigham Young, entered the office of Mr. DeWolfe, who arose to greet him. Stainer approached with uplifted hands and pronounced upon him in the most solemn manner, and in the name of Jesus Christ, a curse. In relating the incident to me Mr. DeWolfe laughingly said, "he cursed me from head to foot, and wound up by cursing my powers and parts of procreation, at which I took him by the collar and ejected him from my office." Mr. DeWolfe became my law partner, and was afterwards appointed by President Cleveland to the office of district judge of the Territory of Montana.

In 1859 a gentleman by the name of Wm. H. Rogers accompanied Judge Cradlebaugh to Cedar City. The purpose for which the judge went is disclosed by a letter written by Mr. Rogers and published by Mr. DeWolfe in Valley Tan on February 29, 1860, from which the following extracts are made:

 
[p. 85]

"Owing to the disadvantages in the location of Cedar City, some of the inhabitants had moved away. There were in consequence a good many vacant houses in that place, and the judge obtained the use of one of them to stay in, while there, and for the purpose of a courtroom.

"As soon as it became known that the judge intended holding court, was to investigate the circumstances of the Mountain Meadows massacre, and that he would have troops to insure protection and enforce his writs, if necessary, several persons visited him at his room at a late hour of the night, and informed him of different facts concerning the massacre.

"All those that called stated that it would be at the risk of their lives if it became known that they had communicated anything to him, and requested the judge if he met them in public in the daytime not to recognize them as persons that he had before seen.

"One of the men confessed that he participated in the massacre, and gave the following account of it:

"Previous to the massacre there was a council held at Cedar City in which President Haight and Bishops Higbee' and Lee participated. At this council a large number of men residing in Cedar City and in other settlements were appointed to perform the work of despatching the emigrants. The men selected for this purpose were instructed to resort, well armed, at a given time, to a spring or small stream lying a short distance to the left of the road leading into the Meadows, and not very far from Hamblin's ranch, but concealed by intervening hills.

"This was the place of rendezvous; and here the men, when they arrived, painted and otherwise disguised themselves to resemble Indians.

"Thence they proceeded, early in the morning, by a path or trail which led from the place of rendezvous directly into the Meadows. By taking this route they could not be seen by anyone at Hamblin's. On arriving at the corral of the emigrants, they came upon several standing outside by a campfire. These were fired upon, and at the first discharge several of them fell dead or wounded; the remainder immediately ran to the inside of the corral, began fortifying themselves, and preparing for defense as well as they could. The attack continued in a desultory manner for four or five days. The corral was closely watched, and if any of the emigrants showed

 
[p. 86]
themselves they were instantly fired at from without. If they attempted to go to the spring, which was only a few yards distant, they were sure to fall by the fire of their assailants. In consequence of the almost certain death that resulted from any attempt to procure water, the emigrants, before the siege discontinued, suffered severely from thirst. The assailants finding that the emigrants could not be subdued by the means adopted, resorted to treachery and stratagem to accomplish what they had been unable to do by force. They returned to their place of rendezvous, there removed their disguise, and again appeared in their ordinary dress. After this Bishop Lee with a party of men returned to the camp of the emigrants bearing a white flag as a signal of truce. From the position of the corral the emigrants were able to see them some time before they reached it. As soon as they discovered the white flag they dressed a little girl in white and placed her at the entrance of the corral to indicate their friendly feelings to the persons bearing the flag. Lee and his party arriving, were invited into the corral where they stayed about an hour, talking with the emigrants about the attack which had been made upon them. Lee told them that the Indians had gone over the hills, and if they would lay down their arms and give up their property he and his party would conduct them back to Cedar City; but if they went out with their arms the Indians would look upon it as an unfriendly act and would again attack them. The emigrants, trusting to Lee's honor and the sincerity of his statements, consented to the terms proposed, left their property and all of their arms at the corral, and under the escort of Lee and his party started in the direction of Cedar City. After they had proceeded about a mile on their way, on a signal given by Bishop Higbee (which was 'brethren, do your duty'), the slaughter began."

"When we arrived at the Mountain Meadows in April, 1859, more than a year and a half after the massacre, the ground for a distance of more than a hundred yards around the central point was covered with skeletons and bones of human beings, interspersed in places with bunches of tangled and matted hair, which from its length evidently belonged to females. In places the bones of small children were laying side by side with those of grown persons, as if parent and child had met death at the same time.

"Small bonnets and scraps of female apparel were also to be seen in places on the ground, and like the bones of those who had worn them, were bleached from long exposure, but the shapes in many instances were entire. In a gulch or  
[p. 87]
hole in the ravine by the side of the road a large number of leg and arm-bones, and also skulls, could be seen sticking above the surface as if they had been buried there, but the action of the weather and the digging of the wolves had again exposed them to light. The entire scene was one too horrible and sickening to adequately describe."

The facts respecting the massacre stated by Mr. Rogers were verified by the evidence in the first trial of Lee. I refer to Mr. Roger's statements because they show that the facts of the massacre were known and publicly announced as early as 1860. In addition, at an early day it had become a matter of general notoriety that John D. Lee and other high officials and members of the Mormon church had perpetrated the massacre. When I became convinced of the complicity of the Mormons in that crime, I made a memorandum of the facts and the names of the participants, as from time to time I learned them, with the intention of presenting them to the United States district attorney whenever, as I had no doubt would eventually be done, Congress passed laws under which the guilty parties could be indicted and convicted. Upon the passage of the Poland bill in 1874, its provisions made the United States marshal the executive officer of the district courts and the United States district attorney the prosecuting officer of those courts in all cases arising under the laws of the Territory, and thereby the territorial jury system was changed. After George Caesar Bates had been removed as United States attorney, and William Cary, in whom I had confidence, had been appointed, I presented to the latter my memorandum of facts, and urged him to take the steps necessary to present them before the grand jury. He did so, and John D. Lee and other Mormons were indicted. When the case against Lee was set for trial Mr. Cary requested me to assist him, which I did. The evidence at the trial showed conclusively that at a meeting in Cedar City composed of leading officials of the Mormon church and a number of its prominent members, it was decided to destroy the emigrants, and the steps to be taken in the accomplishment of that end were there and then inaugurated; also, that after the emigrants had been induced by treachery, in the manner stated in the letter of Mr. Rogers, to place themselves under the protection of Lee and his party, then the preconcerted plans of the mas-  
[p. 88]
sacre were carried out. It was developed that a number of Indians were placed in concealment in a clump of cedars and oaks near the road, several hundred yards from the emigrant corral. The wounded men and seventeen little children, too young to expose the awful crime, were placed in wagons. The women and the other children were formed into a separate procession, the men were arranged in rank, and by the side of each was placed a Mormon assassin armed with a gun, ostensibly to protect the emigrants. The wagons containing the wounded men and young children, under order, moved ahead, the women and other children followed at some distance behind the wagons, and the men with their ostensible guards followed at a distance of about one hundred yards in the rear. When the women and other children reached the ambuscade of the Indians, the signal agreed upon was given by Bishop Higbee, and each fiendish Mormon guard shot or cut the throat of the defenseless victim he was pretendedly guarding. The Indians, not more merciless than the white-skinned Mormons present, rushed from ambush and slaughtered the helpless women the innocent children and the wounded men in the wagons were slain.

At Lee's camp on the evening before the massacre there had been a meeting at which Isaac C. Haight, John M. Higbee, and other officials high in Mormon councils, as well as officers in the territorial militia, were present. At this meeting was concocted the treachery by which the emigrants were induced to give up their arms and property, and to trust Lee and his party to their doom.

The Mountain Meadows massacre was more atrocious than either the massacre of Glencoe or the night of St. Bartholomew. Fifty-two of the participating conspirators belonged to an organization called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That fact appeared from the evidence in the first trial of Lee, and suggests the query, What influence engendered such a fiendish spirit as that horrible crime showed its participants possessed? Certainly not the teachings of Jesus Christ, for in no church under the sun in which the ethics of Christ are taught and enjoined, could any thought of perpetrating such a crime arise in the mind of any of its adherents. That spirit beyond all reasonable doubt was actuated by the pernicious influence exerted upon  
[p. 89]
the Mormon perpetrators of the crime by the oath-bound covenants, sermons and teachings of the church to which they belonged. This assertion is supported by the court proceedings and extensive quotations which immediately follow.

In 1889 a number of Mormon aliens made application to be admitted to citizenship in the district court. Objection to the admission of John Moore and Walter Edgar, two of the applicants, was made on the ground which will appear from the following extracts of the report of the proceedings reported by Frank E. McGurrin, official reporter:

The Court: "In the matter of the application of John Moore and Walter Edgar to be admitted to citizenship, objection was made to their admittance as citizens, because it was shown that they were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and had been through the endowment house. It was stated that it could be shown that those who had been through the endowment house—if not all members of that church—had been required to take oath, or had taken an oath, or entered into an obligation of some kind that would be incompatible with their duties as citizens of the United States; that the oath they were required to take there was incompatible with the oath they were required to take when becoming citizens. In the case of the applicants Moore and Edgar and several others of a similar character, the further hearing of the testimony has been continued until this morning for the purpose of giving the objectors a chance to offer the testimony, which they claimed they could furnish. The court is now ready to hear any testimony they may offer on that subject."

Mr. Baskin: "May it please the court, on account of the importance of this question, and the general interest the public has in excluding all persons from being naturalized who are not strictly competent, Mr. Dickson and myself have been requested to appear and participate in this examination, with the permission of the court."

The Court: "Counsel will be permitted to appear and conduct the examination of witnesses, and counsel for the applicants or any person offering to act as counsel for them, or on behalf of the church, may appear also, and cross-examine witnesses, and offer evidence on their side. If they have evidence to show that such oaths or obligations were not entered into, or any evidence that may tend to explain, they may be at liberty to present it."

LeGrand Young and James H. Moyle appeared as attorneys for the applicants. Twenty-five witnesses were exam-  
[p. 90]
ined, and after the arguments of the attorneys the matter was taken under advisement. Judge Anderson afterward delivered an opinion, in which he said:

"In the application the usual evidence on behalf of the applicants as to residence, moral character, etc., was introduced at a former hearing, and was deemed sufficient. Objection was made, however, to the admission of John Moore and William Edgar upon the ground that they were members of the Mormon church, and also because they had gone through the endowment house of that church, and there had taken an oath or obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship, which they would be required to take if admitted.

"The claim is made by those who objected to the admission to citizenship of these persons that the Mormon church is and always has been a treasonable organization, and in its teaching and its practices hostile to the government of the United States, disobedient to its laws and seeking its over-throw; and that the oath administered to the members in the endowment house, binds them, under a penalty of death, to implicit obedience in all things, temporal as well as spiritual, to the priesthood, and to avenge the death of the prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, upon the government and people of the United States. The taking of further testimony at this time is for the purpose of determining whether or not these allegations are true. Those objecting to the rights of the applicants to be admitted to citizenship, introduced eleven witnesses who have been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Several of these witnesses had held the position of bishop in the church, and all had gone through the endowment house and participated in its ceremony. The testimony of these witnesses was to the effect that every member of the church was expected to go through the endowment house, and that they nearly all do so; that marriages are usually solemnized there, and that those who are married elsewhere go through the endowment house ceremony at as early a date thereafter as practicable, in order that the martial relations shall continue through eternity. That these ceremonies occupy the greater part of a day, and include the taking of an oath, obligation, or covenant, by all who receive their endowments, that they will avenge the blood of the prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, upon the government of the United States and will enjoin this obligation upon their children unto the third and fourth generations; that they will obey the priesthood in all things, and will never reveal the secrets of the endowment house, under the penalty of having their throats cut from ear to ear, their bowels torn out, and their hearts cut out of their bodies. The right arm is anointed that it may be strong to avenge the blood of the prophets. An undergarment,  
[p. 91]
a sort of combination of shirt and drawers called an endowment robe, is then put on, and is to be worn ever after. On this robe near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the abdomen, are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the penalties that will be inflicted in case of a violation of the oath, obligation or covenant, he or she has taken or made.

"On behalf of the applicants, fourteen witnesses testified concerning the endowment ceremony, but all of them declined to state what oaths are taken, or what obligations or covenants are entered into, or what penalties are attached to their violation; and these witnesses, when asked for their reasons of declining to answer, stated that they did so on a point of honor, while several stated that they had forgotten what was said about avenging the blood of the prophets. John Henry Smith, one of the twelve apostles of the church, testified that all that was said in the endowment ceremony about avenging the blood of the prophets, is said in a lecture, in which the ninth and tenth verses of the sixth chapter of Revelations are recited. Other witnesses for the applicants testified that this is the only place in the ceremony where the avenging of the blood of the prophets is mentioned. John Clark, a witness for the applicants, testified that he took some obligations, made some promises, entered into some covenants in the endowment house, and wore his endowment robes, but did not know the significance of the slit over the heart. E. L. T. Harrison, another of applicants' witnesses, testified that he had a clear recollection; that his right arm was washed and something said about his being made stronger to avenge the death of the prophets, and that the names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not mentioned, but were understood to be among the number whose blood was to be avenged; and E. G. Wooley, a witness for the applicants, testified that they were to pray for the Lord to avenge the blood of the prophets. Every other witness for the applicants who was asked the question, stated that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were understood to be included among the prophets whose blood was to be avenged. The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the oaths, promises and covenants of the endowment ceremony, and the penalties attached thereto, testified generally that there was nothing in the ceremony inconsistent with loyalty to the government of the United States, and that the government was not mentioned. One of the objects of this investigation is to ascertain whether the oaths and obligations of the endowment house are incompatible with good citizenship. The refusal of applicants' witnesses to state specifically what oaths, obligations or covenants are taken, or entered into in the ceremonies, renders their testimony of but little value and tends  
[p. 92]
to confirm rather than contradict, the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the endowment ceremonies are inconsistent with the oath an applicant for citizenship is required to take, and that the oaths, obligations, and covenants there made or entered into are incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the United States. The applications of John Moore and Walter Edgar, both of whom were shown on the former examination to be members of the Mormon church, and who have gone through the endowment house, are therefore denied."

As showing the character of the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of the applicants, that of James H. Moyle and John Henry Smith, nephew of the prophet, Joseph Smith, are here set out. Mr. Moyle took the stand as a witness for applicants. Being duly sworn, he testified that he was a member of the Mormon church, and had been through the endowment house twice, once when married, and once ten or twelve years ago.

Mr. Dickson: Did you take your endowments at that time? A. I took my endowments both times.

Q. Did you take any oaths at that time? A. No, sir.

Q. Or covenant? A. No, sir.

Q. What? A. Well, covenant—excuse me; certainly, I took a number of covenants.

Q. Did you take any obligations upon yourself? A. Yes, sir.

Q. With reference to the priesthood? A. In what respect?

Q. Obedience to the priesthood? A. No, sir.

Q. Nothing of the kind? A. No, sir.

Q. Not even by implication? A. No, sir; not even by implication.

Q. Are you testifying without any mental reservation about it? A. I am, positively, without any mental reservation whatever.

Q. Was there any penalty explained to you, or spoken of as a consequence of the violation of your covenants? A. That I decline to answer.

Q. Why? A. Simply because it is a matter which I regard as sacred; I say, that there was no covenant or nothing that was done there in which I, in any way—

Q. Just answer my question, sir? A. I decline to answer.

 
[p. 93]

Q. Then stop when you decline to answer. A. Yes, sir; I decline to answer.

Mr. Dickson: That is all.

Witness: And in behalf of my declaration to the court, I want to say this, that my reason for it is this, that there was nothing, no promise made, but for chastity and for honor, and for good conduct; there was nothing said by which I bound myself in any way against the government, or made or vowed that I would in any way act in antagonism to the government, or that has any bearing or relevancy to this issue.

Mr. Dickson: Now are you through? A. As to those matters that I regard as secret and sacred I decline to answer.

Q. Are you through now? A. Because it has nothing to do with the case.

Q. Have you finished? A. I do not know whether I have or not. If you have anything to ask, I am ready to hear.

Q. I don't want to interrupt you. Are you through with your explanation? A. I am prepared to hear you.

Q. Was there anything said by any person in your hearing about 'avenging the death of the prophets?' A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that? A. It would be a matter of impossibility for me to relate what it is.

Q. I mean the prophets, Joseph and Hyrum? A. Nothing whatever,

Q. The martyred prophets? A. The martyred prophets, yes.

Q. What was it? A. It was nothing more nor less than this: The passage of scripture—I can't recall it. If I had the bible here I could find it. It is in the book of Revelations; it runs something like this—"Oh, Lord, holy and true, how long shall our blood remain unavenged." It was something of that kind, and I am not certain but what—my recollection is, that there was nothing said in connection with that as a matter of instruction. I will state this much in order that the matter may be fully explained—that in the process of receiving endowments there are addresses' delivered by the elders who are officiating; and in one address instruction is given that we should pray that God would avenge the blood of the martyred prophets. That is all.

Q. That is all? A. That is all.

Q. Wasn't there a penalty of death pronounced there? Wasn't it explained to you that the penalty of a violation of any of your covenants would be death? A. I decline to answer.

Q. That—you decline to answer; all right. Mr. Baskin: Wasn't one of these penalties that you should have your throat cut across? A. With reference to what covenant?

 
[p. 94]

Q. Well, with reference to the covenant you took there? A. I decline to answer.

Q. Wasn't the penalty that your bowels should be torn out? A. I decline to answer that unless you tell me what you want me to answer.

Q. And that your heart should be torn out? A. (No response.)

Mr. Baskin: That's all. (Thereupon the witness left the stand.)

The direct examination of John Henry Smith, one of the twelve apostles, by LeGrand Young, in-chief, is as follows:

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Smith, if, in the course of the administration of the ceremonies there in the endowment house, there is any covenant or oath or affirmation made by, or required of, those passing through there—that they will avenge the blood of the prophet on this nation, or its people, or against the government of the United States? Has there ever been, since you first went through the endowment house? A. I absolutely declare that there was no such oath, or such covenant, nor such bond entered into by me; nor did I ever administer such an oath, covenant, or bond to any man, that could be construed by any reasonable construction of language, anyway upon the earth, to mean a thing of that kind; and will say here for myself, that had any man presented to me an oath that would have bound me to become a deliberate enemy of my country that I love and respect, I would have repudiated it upon the spot.

Q. Is there any thing in the endowment ceremony that teaches, promises, or in any way countenances the right of one man to shed the blood of another. A. No, sir.

Q. Is there any thing in the teachings, of the church from the first revelation to the last? A. No, sir.

Cross-examination by Mr. Dickson: Q. I understand you to say that you have a very deep affection for your country. A. I have, sir.

Q. You mean, by "country," the United States? A. I have, sir.

Q. And, that if you had been required to enter into any covenants or obligations of any character which was antagonistic to your duty as a citizen of your country, you would have promptly repudiated it? A. I say so, even at that early age.

Q. And that has always been your attitude? A. That is today, and was then.

Q. Are you a polygamist? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did you enter into polygamy? A. I entered into it twelve years ago.

 
[p. 95]

Q. Didn't you know that that was against a law of your country? A. I knew that there was a contest as to the constitutionality of a law that had been passed by Congress.

Q. Didn't you know that that was against the law of your country, and that the law had been declared prior to that, to be a constitutional and valid law? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you continue after the passage of the law of 1882 to live in violation of it? A. I decline to answer that question.

Q. If you did continue to live in violation of that law after you knew that its constitutionality had been upheld by the supreme court of the United States, would you still maintain that you have a deep affection for the laws of your country? A. Yes, sir. The law of Congress was directed against the principle of my faith, and that principle of my faith was introduced, acknowledged, and had been taught and established for nearly forty years.

Q. Didn't you know that the Congress of the United States, as early as 1862, prohibited the practice of polygamy, in the Territory of Utah? A. No, sir. It prohibited the practice of bigamy in the Territory of Utah.

Q. Well, what distinction do you make between bigamy and polygamy? A. I make this distinction—that a bigamist is a man that marries a wife, and then marries another, deceiving the first by not permitting her to know that he has married a second, or the second to know that he had married the first.

Q. According to your understanding, if the first and second wife, at the time of the second marriage had knowledge of situation of the man, that there is no bigamy. Is that it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you believe in the revelation of "celestial" marriage? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand that revelation to be to this effect—that if the first wife refuses to consent to her husband taking a second wife, she shall be damned? A. I understand that principle; and a good many women have taken that chance. Under the Mormon theory they shall be damned.

Q. What part of that revelation do you reject? A. I accept the whole revelation.

Q. If, believing in that revelation, you felt it your duty to take the second living wife for time as well as eternity, and your first wife withheld her consent, would you not yield obedience to the will of God, and take a second wife. A. Yes, sir. If I felt to do it.

(After some discussion between the counsel, the court ruled: "The question of whether the constitutionality of the law had been passed upon or not is immaterial, because until  
[p. 96]
the supreme court of the United States had held the law unconstitutional, it is the duty of the citizens to obey it.")

Q. Knowing that there was a law upon the statute books of the United States making it a crime for you or any other man in this Territory who had a wife living to take another wife, didn't you violate that law? A. Yes, sir. I did violate that law upon the statute books. I did this upon the basis that it was unconstitutional.

Q. After you knew the constitutionality of this class of legislation had been upheld, you still continued to violate that law, didn't you? A. I decline to answer.

Q. If you did continue to violate it after you knew its constitutionality was upheld, don't you say that where the law of the land comes in conflict with what you believe, as revealed to your church, that you will follow the latter and reject the former? A. When the law of the land takes my religion that is established and fixed, and that I have practiced and observed, while the constitution of the United States shall remain I shall think I am protected in the practice and observance of my religion so long as I wrong no other being. As I re-marked, I had taken upon myself an agreement and covenant that was a perpetual one. Were I outside of that condition in regard to that matter, I would be reasonably a free man.

Q. Isn't it true that your church, through its recognized officers and teachers and leaders, has taught for years, publicly and privately, that the Kingdom of God was now established on the earth in the form of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? A. I have heard them use that name.

Q. And you have heard every apostle of the church teach that doctrine, have you not? A. Not as a doctrine, but announce it, in the course of talk, "this is the Kingdom of God."

Q. And say it was the duty of the people—meaning the members of the church—to follow the counsels of the men at the head of the church in respect to building up the Kingdom of God on earth, haven't you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Weren't the people instructed to pray the Lord to avenge the blood of the prophets, and teach that to their children and their children's children? A. I have no remembrance of any such instructions—of that positive kind.

Q. Well, that they were instructed to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the prophet, wasn't that it? A. I decline to answer any further questions with regard to that.

Q. What penalties were attached with regard to the violation of the covenants that you took in the endowment house? A. I decline to make any statement.

Q. Wasn't one of the penalties, "that you would have your throat cut?" A. I decline to answer. (And the witness declined to answer all questions asked him on that subiect.)

 
[p. 97]

Witness: Your Honor, I would like to make one statement right here, and that is this: That Oliver Cowdrey, the immediate friend and associate of Joseph Smith, apostatized from the Mormon church. He was never killed. He knew all that Joseph Smith knew. David Whitmore and Martin Harris, who were his immediate associates, apostatized from the church. They were never hurt, in any degree. Every one of them died outside of the church. And the fact that Mr. Baskin, who is a pronounced enemy, and has been from the first—and I have always respected him for his honesty—has never let up for a minute; he has fought the Mormons from the first until this day, and as viciously as any man ever did.

Mr. Dickson: What is the penalty for going against the Lord's anointed and heads of the church? A. I decline to answer to penalties.

Q. How long had you married your first wife until you took a second? (No answer.) Dr. Heber John Richards, another witness for the applicants, upon cross-examination, testified as follows:

Q. You say there was no covenant to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation. A. None that I heard of.

Q. What was said about avenging the blood of the prophets? A. In the fore part of the ceremony, in the anointing, they anointed my arm, that it might be strong to avenge the blood of the prophets, and that was all that was said.

Q. What was said about avenging the blood of Joseph and Hyrum? A. Nothing whatever about Joseph and Hyrum; but I recollect it was just "prophets."

Q. What obligation did you take with reference to obedience to the priesthood in all things? A. If any, it has slipped my mind, I don't remember.

Q. What teachings was there in reference to polygamy? A. I don't remember anything being said about polygamy.

Q. Did you take any obligation under penalty? I wish you would state it in substance. A. I couldn't do it—I couldn't do it if I was willing, and I don't feel willing to.

Q. Well, doctor, it has been stated upon the witness stand that if a man apostatized from the church, the duty of those who have been through the endowment house, was to go and murder or kill him. Did you hear anything of that sort? A. No, sir. I can explain to you, what I understood by that was simply this: That after I had become a member of the church, if I then fell away, I could get remission if I went voluntarily and asked for the atonement of my blood, but not without it; it must come by my desire, the same as baptism does. If I was taken out and baptized against my will, it would do me no good; and if I was killed against my will it would do me no good.

 
[p. 98]

Q. And it would be appropriate when they made the request for some brother to shed his blood? A. Yes, some person who was authorized to do so.

Q. And it wouldn't be murder? A. It wouldn't be murder—it would be murder probably in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the church.

Q. And that was taught? A. That was taught.

Miss Owens was converted in England by a man named Miles. Having plighted her troth to him, she was induced to accompany him to Utah before they married as he was desirous of having the marriage ceremony performed in the endowment house. Shortly after arriving in Salt Lake City she ascertained that Miles was also engaged to be married to a Miss Spencer, and that Miles intended to marry them both at the same time in the endowment house. To this Miss Owens most strenuously objected; but being so far away from her native home, among strangers, she was finally prevailed upon to consent on condition that she should be made the first and legal wife of Miles, and Miss Spencer the second. After the parties had gone through the ceremonies of the endowment house, at a social entertainment given in honor of the newly married parties at the residence of Angus Cannon, the fact was revealed to Miss Owens that she had been deceived, and in place of becoming the first wife by the ceremony, she was only a plural one. She rebelled, and at her instance Miles was criminally prosecuted and convicted. Shortly after the ceremony was performed, she made a statement of what transpired in the endowment house, from which the following is an extract:

"* * * Joseph F. Smith then came to where we were all waiting, and told us that if we wanted to back out, now was our time, because we should not be able afterward, and that we were bound to go right through. All those who wanted to go through were told to hold up their hands, which, of course, everyone did, believing that all the good and holy things that were to be seen and heard in. the House of the Lord were yet to come. He then told us that if ever any of us attempted to reveal what we saw and heard in the House, our memories would be blighted, and we should be everlastingly damned, for they were things too holy to be spoken of between each other after we had left the endowment house. We were then told to be very quiet, and listen. Joseph F. Smith then went away.

 
[p. 99]

"They then proceeded to give us the first grip of the Aaronic, or lesser priesthood, which consists in putting the thumb on the index finger and clasping the hands round. We were then made to swear to obey the laws of the Mormon church and all they enjoin, in preference to those of the United States. The penalty for revealing this grip and oath is that you will have your throat cut from ear to ear, and your tongue torn out from your mouth. The sign of the penalty is drawing the hand, with the thumb pointing towards the throat, sharply across, and bringing the arm to the level of the square, and with the hand upraised to heaven, swearing to abide the same.

"Then came a man in and said that the Gospel had been again restored to the earth, and that an Angel had revealed it to a young boy named Joseph Smith, and that all the gifts, blessings and prophecies of old had been restored with it, and this last revelation was to obey called the Latter-day Dispensation. The priests pretended joyfully to accept this, and said it was the very thing they were in search of, nothing else having had the power to satisfy them. They then proceeded to give us the first grip of the Melchisedek, or higher priesthood, which is said to be the same that Christ held. The thumb is placed on the knuckle of the index finger, which is placed straight along the hand, while the lower part of the hand is clasped with the remaining fingers. The robe for this grip was changed from the right to the left shoulder. We were then made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, the martyr, together with that of his brother Hyrum, on this American nation, that we would teach our children, and children's children, to do so. The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment."

Scores of apostate Mormons of credibility who have gone through the endowment ceremonies have, in confidence, stated to me that such oaths were administered. Numerous authors of books have also stated that they were so administered. Among them are Mrs. Stenhouse, authoress of "Tell It All," and Ann Eliza Young, the nineteenth wife of Brigham, who went through the endowment ceremony when she was married to that alleged holy prophet, and whose writings expose many secret practices of the church.

From the foregoing when viewed in connection with the extracts of Mormon sermons, here following, I do not think that any unbiased person will doubt the fact that such oaths were administered in the endowment house, and that those sermons inspired the infernal spirit displayed at the Mountain Meadows massacre.

 
[p. 100]

The following extracts are from sermons published officially in the Journal of Discourses from time to time, that were delivered before the perpetration of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and are referred to as follows:

(Brigham Young in Vol. III, page 247). "A few of the men and women who go into the House of the Lord and receive their endowments, and in the most sacred manner make covenants before the Almighty, go and violate those covenants, You say, 'that man ought to die for transgressing the law of God'. Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife and put a javelin into both of them? You would be justified, and they would atone for their sins and be received into the Kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case and under such circumstances. I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands; but you who trifle with your covenants, be careful, lest in judging you will be judged. There is not a man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God who will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out. Your own blood must atone for it."

(Idem, Vol. II, page 255). "At the present, the enemies of all righteousness have the lead, and say, 'Now, you poor Mormons, are you not afraid that we can muster our thousands and destroy every one of you?' Go to hell, say I, and be damned, for you will go there, and you are damned already."

(Ibid., page 311). "It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for wrongs. I will tell you how it could be done. We could take the same law that they have taken—mobocracy—and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." (All the people said, "amen.")

(Ibid., page 317). "I have never yet talked as rough in these mountains as I did in the States when they killed Joseph. I then said boldly and aloud, 'If ever a man should lay his hands on me and say, on account of my religion, "thou art my prisoner" the Lord Almighty helping me, I would send that man to hell across lots.' I feel so now: Let mobocrats keep their hands off me or I will send them where they belong. I am always prepared for such an emergency."

(Brigham in Vol. I, page 83). "Now you Gladdenites, keep your tongues still, lest sudden destruction come upon you! I will tell you of a dream that I had last night. I dreamed that I was in the midst of a people who were dressed in rags and tatters. They had turbans upon their heads, and these were also hanging in tatters. The rags were of many  
[p. 101]
colors, and when the people moved they were all in motion. Their object in this appeared to be to attract attention. Said they to me, 'we are Mormons, Brother Brigham.' 'No, you are not,' I replied. 'We have been,' said they. And they began to jump and caper about and dance, and their rags of many colors were all in motion to attract the attention of the people. I said, 'You are not Saints—you are a disgrace to them.' Said they, 'We have been Mormons.' By and by came along some mobocrats, and they greeted them with, 'how do you do, sir; I am very happy to see you.' They kept on that way for an hour. I felt ashamed of them, for they were in my eyes a disgrace to Mormonism. Then I saw two ruffians whom I knew to be mobbers and murderers, and they crept into a bed where one of my wives and children were. I said, 'you, that call yourselves brethren, tell me: Is this the fashion among you?' They said, Oh! they are good men, they are gentlemen. With that, I took my large bowie knife that I used to wear as a bosom pin, and cut one of their throats from ear to ear, saying, 'Go to hell across lots.' The other one said, 'You dare not serve me so.' I instantly sprang at him, seized him by the hair of the head, and, bringing him down, cut his throat and sent him after his comrade, and told them both if they would behave themselves they should yet live, but if they did not, I would unjoint their necks. At this I awoke. I say, rather than an apostate should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die! [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet * * *

(Idem, Vol. III, page 247). "There is no man or woman who violates the covenants made with their God that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out. Your blood must atone for it, and the judgment of the Almighty will come sooner or later, and every man and woman will have to atone for breaking their covenants."

(Idem, Vol. V, page 78). "But woe, woe, to that man who comes here to unlawfully interfere with my affairs. Woe, woe, to those men who come here to unlawfully interfere and meddle with me and this people. I swore in Nauvoo, when my enemies were looking me in the face, that I would send them to hell across lots if they meddled with me, and I asked no odds of all hell today."

(Idem, Vol. III, page 226). "The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet—when we shall take the old broadsword and ask, 'Are  
[p. 102]
you for God?' and if you are not heartily on the Lord's side, you shall be hewn down."

(Idem, Vol. V, page 6). "If men come here and do not behave themselves, they will not only find the Saints whom they talked so much about biting their horses' heels, but the scoundrels will find something biting their heels. I wish such characters would let the boys have a chance to lay their hands on them. In my plain remarks I merely call things by their right names."

(Idem, Vol. III, page 50). "We are yet obliged to have devils in our community. We could not build up the Kingdom without them. Many of you know that you can not get your endowments without the devil being present. Indeed, we cannot make rapid progress without the devils. I know that it frightens the righteous sectarian to think that we have so many devils with us—so many miserable, poor curses. Bless your souls, we could not prosper in the Kingdom of God without them. We must have those among us who will steal our fence-poles, who go and steal hay from their neighbor's haystack, or go into his cornfield and steal corn and leave the fence down. Nearly every ax that is dropped in the canyon must be picked up by them, and the scores of lost watches, gold rings, breast pins, etc., must get into their hands, though they will not wear them in your sight. It is essentially necessary to have such characters here. Live here, then, you poor, miserable curses, until the time of retribution, when your heads will have to be severed from your bodies. Just let the Almighty say, 'lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet,' and the time of thieves is short in the community. What do you suppose they would say in old Massachusetts should they hear that the Latter-day Saints had received a revelation or commandment to lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet? What would they say in old Connecticut? They would raise a universal howl of 'How wicked those Mormons are. They are killing the evil-doers who are among them.' What do I care for the wrath of man, more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard? I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting, but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path. I want the Elders of Israel to understand that if, they are exposed in their stealing, lying, deceiving wickedness and covetousness which is idolatry, they must not fly in a passion about it, for we calculate to expose you from time to time as we please, when we can get time to notice you."

(Heber Kimball in Vol. IV, page 357). "I have no doubt there will be hundreds who will leave us, and go away to our  
[p. 103]
enemies. I wish they would this fall; it might save us much trouble; and if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be spilled, or else they will be damned, and that, too, according to their covenants."

(Orson Hyde in Vol. I, pages 71-72.) "I will suppose a case: That there is a large flock of sheep on the prairie, and here are shepherds, also, who watch over them with care. It is generally the case that the shepherds are provided with most excellent dogs that understand their business. * * * Suppose the shepherd should discover a wolf approaching the flock, what would he likely do? Why, we should suppose that if the wolf was in proper distance, that he would kill him at once. In short, he would shoot him down—kill him on the spot. If the wolf was not within shot, we would naturally suppose he would set the dogs' on him—and you are aware, I have no doubt, that these shepherd dogs have very pointed teeth and are very active. It is some times the case the shepherd, perhaps, has not with him the necessary arms to destroy the wolf, but in such a case, he would set the faithful dogs on it, and by that means accomplish its destruction. * * * Now, was Jesus Christ the good shepherd? Yes; what the faithful shepherd is to the sheep, so is the Savior to his followers. He has gone, and left on the earth other shepherds who stand in the place of Jesus Christ to take care of the flock. If you say the priesthood or authorities of the Church are the shepherds, and the church is the flock, you can make your own application of this figure. It is not at all necessary for me to do it."

(Heber Kimball in Vol. I, page 160). "I have to do the work he [Brigham] tells me to do, and you have to do the same, and he has to do the work told him by the Great Master."

(Heber Kimball was in charge of the Tithing House when this sermon was delivered—Vol. V, page 135). "If you want a pound of coffee or tea, or a pair of shoes, it is 'Come, Brother Heber, go quick and get me what I want. If you don't, I will go and tell Brother Brigham.' Brother Brigham! go and be damned. I wish such characters were in hell, where they belong. [Voice, 'they are there']. I know it, and it is that which makes them wiggle so, the poor, miserable devils. They would make Our Father and God a drudge—make Him do their dirty work—kill those poor devils and every poor rotten hearted curse in our midst. With them it is, 'Lord, kill them—kill them, damn them—kill them, Lord.' We intend to kill the poor cusses ourselves."

From a sermon delivered by Brigham Young in 1855 and published in the Deseret News:

 
[p. 104]

"Have not this people of God a right to baptize a sinner, to save him when he commits those crimes that can only be atoned for by shedding his blood? We would not kill a man, of course, unless we killed him to save him. Do you think it would be any sin to kill me if I were to break my covenants? Would you kill me if I break the covenants of God, and you had the spirit of God? Yes; and the more spirit of God I had, the more I should strive to save your souls by spilling your blood when you had committed sin that could not be remitted by baptism."

I quote further from the opinion of Judge Anderson in the naturalization matter before referred to, as follows:

"The evidence also shows that blood atonement is one of the doctrines of the church under which, for certain offenses, the offender shall suffer death as the only means of atoning for this transgression, and that any member of the church has a right to shed his blood. In a discourse delivered September 21, 1856, Brigham Young said:

"'There are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world or in the world to come; and if they had their eyes open to their true condition they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilled upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; whereas, if such is not the case they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth you consider it strong doctrine; but it is to save them. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sin through the fall, and those committed by men, yet men commit sins which it [the blood] never can remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day, and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them, that the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar as in ancient days, and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit; but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand. They understand the doctrine, and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you did not understand it.'

"And again on the eighth day of February, 1857, in a discourse in the tabernacle, President Young used the following language (Deseret News, Vol. VI, page 397):

"'But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking life. You are aware  
[p. 105]
that when Brother [Governor] Cummings came to the point of loving our neighbors, he could Yes or No as the case might be. That is true, but I want to connect it with the doctrine you have heard in the bible. When will we love our neighbors as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all, every person loves himself. Now if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist; we want to go into the Kingdom where we can enjoy eternity, and see no more sorrow and death. This is the desire of every person believing in God. Now, take a person in this congregation who has knowledge of being saved in the Kingdom of God and Our Father; and being an exalted one, who knows and understands the principle of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternity when compared with the vain and foolish things of the world, and suppose he is overtaken in a gross fault and has committed a sin which he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods—Is there a man or a woman in this house that would not say "shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods ?" All mankind love themselves, and let this principle be known by an individual and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves until eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus meant. He never told a man or a woman to love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended such a thing. I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the last resurrection if their lives had been taken, and their blood spilt upon the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil until our elder Brother, Jesus Christ raises them up to conquer death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left the church for whom there is no chance whatever of exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nation forbid this principle being in full force. But the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is loving our neighbor as ourselves. If he needs help, help him; and if he needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it. And if any of you, who understand the principles of eternity, if you have committed sins requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, you should not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be  
[p. 106]
spilt, that you might gain the salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind. Now brethren and sisters, will you live your religion? How many hundreds of times have I asked that question—Will the Latter-day Saints live their religion?'"

"President Jedediah M. Grant, in a discourse March 12, 1854, on the subject that he calls Covenant Breakers—that is, those who leave the Mormon church—used the following language:

"'Then what ought this meek people, who keep the commandments of God, do unto them. "Nay," says one, "they ought to pray to the Lord to kill them." I want to know if you wish the Lord to come down and do all your dirty work? Many of the Latter-day Saints will pray, and petition, and supplicate the Lord to do a thousand things that they themselves would be ashamed to do. When a man prays for a thing, he ought to be willing to perform it himself; but if the Latter-day Saints should put to death the covenant-breakers, it would try the faith of the very meek, just and pious ones among them; it would cause a great deal of whining in Israel. Then there was another old commandment. The Lord commanded them not to pity the persons whom they kill, but to execute the law of God upon persons worthy of death. This should be done by the entire congregation, showing no pity. I have thought there would have to be quite a revolution among the Mormons before such a commandment could be obeyed completely by them. The Mormons have a great deal of sympathy. For instance, if they get a man before a tribunal administering the law of the land, and succeed in getting a rope around his neck, and having him done up like a dead dog, it is all right; but if the church and Kingdom of God should step forth and execute the law of God, oh, what a burst of Mormon sympathy it would cause! I wish we were in a situation favorable to our doing that which is justifiable before God without any contaminating influence of Gentile amalgamation, laws and traditions, that the prophet of the people of God might lay the axe at the root of the tree and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit might be hewn down. What! do you think the people would do right and keep the law of God by actually putting to death the transgressor? Putting to death the covenant-breakers would exhibit the law of God, no matter by whom it was done—that is my opinion. You talk of the doings of the different governments, the United States, if you please, what do they do with traitors—what mode do they adopt to punish them? Do traitors to the government forfeit their lives? Examine also the doings of other earthly governments on this point, and you will find the same practice universal. I am not aware that there are any exceptions, but people will look into the books of theology and argue that the people of God have a right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying,  
[p. 107]
"I have got them on the hook now. They can cut them off and I will put eight or ten spirits worse than they are into their tabernacles and send them back to mob them."'

"In September, 1857, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in this city and found in Vol. V, Journal of Discourses, used the following language:

" '* * * There is high treason in Washington, and if the law was carried out, it would hang up many of them, and the very act of James K. Polk, in having five hundred of our men3 while we were making our way out of the country, under an agreement forced upon us, would have hung him between the heavens and the earth if the laws had been faithfully carried out. And now, if they can send a force4 against this people, we have every constitutional and legal right to send them to hell, and we calculate to send them there * * * Our enemies had better count the cost, for if they continue the job they will want to let it out to subcontractors before they get half through with it. If they persist in sending troops here, I want the people of the West and the East to understand that it will not be safe for them to cross the plains."

"An effort was made to show that blood atonement, as preached by Brigham Young and Jedediah Grant, is not now the doctrine of the church, and a pamphlet containing an address on this subject by Elder Charles W. Penrose* in October, 1884. was offered in evidence; but in this pamphlet Mr. Penrose sustains the doctrine of blood atonement as preached by Brigham Young and President Grant: * * *

(Page 18). "'Now, according to the doctrine of President Brigham Young, the blood of Jesus Christ, as I have shown you, atoned for the original sin, and for sins that men commit, and yet there are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive any benefit through the shedding of Christ's blood. Is that a true doctrine? It is true, if the bible is true. That is bible doctrine.'

(Page 36). "'Now, Brother Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young, because of the transgression of the people, spoke as I have quoted. This was the time of the reformation, and the fears of evil-doers was worked upon to induce reform, and hence the strong language used at that time. Do we need the same language now? I hope not; but if there was any need of it, it would be just as applicable now as then.'

Page 43). "'These are some of the ideas entertained by the Latter-day Saints on the subject of blood atonement. After baptized persons have made sacred covenants with God and then

 
[p. 108]
committed deadly sins, the only atonement they can make is the shedding of their blood. At the same time, because of the laws of the land and the prejudice of the nation and the ignorance of the world, this law cannot be carried out; but when the time comes that the law of God should be in full force upon the earth, then this penalty will be inflicted for those crimes committed by persons under covenant not to commit them.'"

"Whether such language as the above instigated the Mountain Meadows massacre, or whether that horrible butchery was done by direct command of Brigham Young, will probably never be known, but it is a part of the history of the Territory, that about that time a party of peaceful emigrants who were passing through Utah on their way to California, consisting of about one hundred and thirty men, women and children, were mercilessly butchered by men under the command of John D. Lee and Capt. Wm. H. Dame, both Mormons in high standing."

Soon after the assassination of Dr. Robinson, an inquest was held at which ex-Governor John B. Weller made in substance the following apt remarks to the jury:

"* * * The founder of the Christian religion preached good will amongst men, instead of calling into action the worst passions of the human breast. 'Blessed,' said He, 'are the peace-makers.' Did He not teach obedience to the law and respect to the powers that be? Did He not say 'thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Did He not say 'love your enemies and pray for those who despitefully treat and persecute you?' Why—when surrounded by His enemies and nailed to the cross—He extended His eyes towards Heaven, and with His dying breath exclaimed 'Father forgive them; they know not what they do!' How inconsistent are these sentiments, promulgated by our illustrious Savior, with the doctrines taught by the modern prophet in the tabernacle."

It was shown by the evidence at the first trial of Lee that the emigrants after leaving Salt Lake City on their journey south encountered unfriendly neighborhoods, and the inhabitants who were Mormons refused to sell them anything. Robert Kershaw, a very intelligent witness, at the first trial of Lee, testified that he was living in Beaver City and saw the emigrants pass through; that previously George A. Smith had arrived and preached in the public square. He said the emigrants were coming, and forbade the people selling them anything under the penalty of being disfellowshiped; that John Morgan traded a small cheese for a bedquilt and was cut off from the church. In his own words, he said:

 
[p. 109]

George A. Smith

A black and white portrait of George A. Smith.  
[p. 109]

"The emigrants camped in front of my house. I had a good garden, and they wanted to buy vegetables. I refused to trade with them. Samuel Dodge, a policeman, stood by the train, and intimidated people from trading with the emigrants."

Having learned that Mrs. Julia F. Thompson, who came to Utah soon after the first settlement was made, had heard Smith preach at Beaver City against the approaching emigrants, and knowing that she was a lady of ability, high standing, and of undoubted veracity, I called at her home in Salt Lake City on December 14, 1912, where she made to me the statement following:

"At the time of the massacre of the Arkansas emigrants I resided in Beaver City. A short time before they reached there, George A. Smith, on a Sunday, preached a sermon at which I was present. He informed the people that the emigrants were coming, and forbade selling anything to them. Afterwards it was common talk among the neighbors that they had been forbidden by the church authorities to deal with the emigrants. After they arrived in Beaver and camped near there, Mrs. Morgan, who did the washing for our family, knowing that I had been making cheese, came and asked me for one. I said, 'You want to sell it to the emigrants?' She said, 'Yes; I can sell it to them for a coverlet, and will do it because when my husband goes into the canyon he takes one of mine, and I sleep cold.' I told her that there were spies around, and if she did it she would be disfellowshiped, as orders had been given that anyone who sold the emigrants anything would be disfellowshiped. I gave her one cheese and told her she might have two if she wanted them. She sold the one I gave her to the emigrants. Shortly afterward I went to church one Sunday, and both Mrs. Morgan and her husband were disfellowshiped because she sold that cheese to the emigrants. The motion for their disfellowship was submitted to the vote of the congregation, and all hands went up in favor of the motion except mine. I did not vote. Afterward, at another church meeting I attended, Mrs. Morgan and her husband expressed their sorrow for disobeying the counsel not to trade with the emigrants, and were restored to fellowship."

Mrs. Thompson further stated that one or two years before the massacre she heard Col. W. H. Dame preach a sermon in Parowan, in which he said: "If you wives and sisters in passing by, see the head of a husband or brother upon the street, you must not ask any reasons. It is none of your business."

 
[p. 110]

Lee in his confession stated that: "Inasmuch as this lot (the emigrants) had men among them that helped kill the prophet in the Carthage jail, the killing of them would be keeping our oaths and avenging the blood of the prophets." He further stated that in a conversation he had with President Haight respecting Brother Dan McFarland, after the massacre, he (Haight) said, "Dan will make a great warrior." "Why do you think so?" Lee asked. "Well, Dan came to me and said, 'You Must get me another knife, because the one I have has no good stuff in it, for the edge turned when I cut a fellow's throat at the Meadows. I caught one of the devils that was trying to get away, and when I cut his throat, it took all of the edge off of my knife.' I tell you, that boy will make a warrior."

A number of the victims of the massacre had their throats cut, just in the same way as Isaac Potter, one of the victims of the Coalville murderers, (page 10) who had his throat cut from ear to ear, after he had been instantly killed and was lying prostrate upon the ground from the discharge of a shotgun in his back at close range. Other similar cases have been stated to me, and were given in the testimony at the trials of John D. Lee.

There is no doubt in my mind that all such cases were inspired by the throat-cutting sermons and oath-bound covenants of the Mormon church. The blood-thirsty spirit revealed by these sermons conclusively shows that their authors had vengeful and malignant hearts. To call an organization in which such sermons were tolerated, and afterwards reproduced and perpetuated in its official publications, the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," is a disgraceful profanation of the sacred name of Jesus Christ. These disgusting sermons of Brigham Young not only emphasize the absurdity of his assumption of divine agency, but resemble the ravings of a vicious lunatic, and are such as no Christian would deliver.

Klingensmith testified that Bishop-Major John M. Higbee cut one man's throat; that women were lying around with their throats cut, and some with their heads smashed in; that he branded some of the cattle—about fifty head—with a cross, which was the church brand; that he attended a Conference held in Salt Lake City on October 5, 1857, where he met Lee, who told him that he had told Brigham Young everything that  
[p. 111]
had transpired at the Mountain Meadows massacre; that the next day, Lee, Charley Hopkins and himself met in President Young's office; that the president received them well, took them to his barn and showed them his horses, carriages and other fine things. He told the witness, who had control of the property, to turn it over to Lee, as he was Indian agent anyway, and the disposal of the property belonged to him; that Brigham Young then turned to the witness and said: "What you know about this affair, do not tell to anyone; do not talk about it among yourselves."

On cross-examination, this witness further testified that his first knowledge of the emigrants was that they had been ordered away from Salt Lake City and were coming down through the settlements; that he heard from President Haight that the people were forbidden to trade with them; that in council meeting in Cedar City he said the emigrants were coming down, and that they must be destroyed; that before the emigrants arrived, President Haight preached against trading with them; that when the order was given at the time the emigrants marched out of their corral he shot at the man by whose side he was marching; that witness was cut off from the church four or five years ago, and resigned his bishopric in 1868 or 1869; was not in full fellowship there-after; that President Haight told him that he sold fifty head of the cattle to Hooper; that witness was afraid of personal violence if he should offer any active opposition; did not consider his life would be safe, and others were in the same position; that his fear grew out of his long experience; had seen one man put away, and had heard of other such cases; took part in the matter through personal fear; had heard of Mr. Anderson being put away, and also three others who had disobeyed counsel.

E. W. Thompson testified that he saw the emigrant train pass through Beaver City; saw men and women in the company; that they seemed to be a respectable class, of people. He had previously heard that the emigrants were coming. At a meeting held in the city, the bishop read a letter counseling the people not to trade with the emigrants.

Wm. Roberts testified that he saw the emigrants in Red Creek Bottoms; that there was quite a number of families in the train; that Colonel Dame preached about them at Parowan, and that he said, "You must not sell them any provisions."

 
[p. 112]

James McGuffie, one of the witnesses in behalf of the objectors in the naturalization investigation before mentioned, testified as follows:

Q. Do you know whether or not after the massacre, John D. Lee continued to be on terms of friendship with Brigham Young? A. Oh, yes; and he got more wives. Had two sealed to him the very year he committed that atrocious murder. I was as well acquainted with John D. Lee as I could be with any man.

Mr. Baskin: Was he afterwards a member of the legislature? A. Yes, sir; and Wm. H. Dame, too.

Mr. Dickson: What I want to get at is, whether you know, of your own knowledge, that after the massacre John D. Lee continued to be on terms of friendship with the president of the church? A. Oh, yes, and got two more women after that. Got two at a lick; an English girl—she died.

Mr. Baskin: Now, I understood you to say that you took an obligation to obey the priesthood in all matters? A. Yes, in all things.

Q. Was there any penalty attached to your disobedience to the priesthood in the ordeal through which you passed? A. There was nothing farther than that the throat was to be cut and the belly ripped out. I think that is plenty enough.

Q. Do you know William Laney? A. Yes, I knew him well. He lived about five rods below my house at the time of the Mountain Meadows massacre.

Q. Do you know of his having furnished that band of emigrants with supplies? A. Yes; Laney recognized in the company a young man named Harris as being the son of a man that had been a great friend to him, and treated him kindly when he was on a Mormon mission in Tennessee. Laney invited the young man to supper at his house, and invited him to come and get his breakfast; and the young man, after he got his breakfast, saw the onions growing in the dooryard, and said that he would like to have a few of them; and Laney said, "Well, take all you want, and welcome," and he took them; and then Dame sent Barney Carter, one of the Destroying Angels, who tore a picket out of the fence and hit Laney side of the head. The man has never been sound in his mind since, just because he let the onions go to that man. It was Laney's only offense.

Q. What position did Dame hold in the church at that time? A. He was the colonel in the armed battalion, and was a high priest of the Mormon church of the Parowan Branch in 1857.

 
[p. 113]

In John D. Lee's confession, which was made only after it was certain he would be executed, is contained in substance the same statement respecting the assault upon Laney as that made by McGuffie.

William Bradshaw testified that after the emigrants passed, Haight preached in Cedar City at a Sunday meeting, and said "Some old fool had been tampering with the Indians; if he had kept aloof, the emigrants would have been dead and in their graves by this time. Never mind," he added, "they have only gone farther into the net." He had also forbade the people from trading with the emigrants at a previous meeting; after the massacre, he had preached in a meeting that nothing was to be said about it.

It appears from the testimony, which was very voluminous, that a large portion of the emigrants' property was sold to the Mormons in Cedar City at public auction, and that as the people in that vicinity had not much money, most of the property so sold was paid for in grain. In answer to the question, "What was done with the grain?" asked by me of a number of the witnesses who testified to that fact, they invariably replied: "It was put in the tithing house granary."

In 1877 Geo. Caesar Bates came to my office and stated that while he and his partner had appeared and participated in the defense of John D. Lee, at the first trial, they were employed to do so by Brigham Young, "trustee in trust" of the Mormon church; that he contemplated bringing a suit against the church to recover for the services so performed, as payment of a large portion thereof had been refused by Brigham, and that he desired me and my partner, Mr. DeWolf, to act as his attorneys in the case; that he had prepared the complaint, which he handed me. Upon reading it, I consented to act as his attorney, and instituted a suit. The following is an extract from the complaint:

"In the Third District Court of Utah Territory: Geo. C. Bates, Plaintiff, vs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Defendant.

"Plaintiff alleges that on the 17th day of August, 1875, the defendant was indebted to the firm of Sutherland & Bates, attorneys at law, in the sum of $5,000.00 for work, labor, care and diligence of the firm, performed and bestowed  
[p. 114]
by them as attorneys, of and for the defendants at its instance and request, in and about and concerning the indictment, defense and trial of John D. Lee; and for fees due, and of right payable to said firm in respect thereof, and for necessary money spent by said firm in and about said work, labor and employment for defendant at its instance and request; that the said Sutherland had transferred and assigned his interest in said claim to the plaintiff."

The church had been incorporated by an act of the territorial legislature. Williams & Young, attorneys of the church, interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the employment of Sutherland & Bates to defend Lee was not within the scope of the corporate powers granted by said act. Upon expressing my opinion to Mr. Bates that the demurrer would be sustained by the court, he requested me to prepare, if that should occur, a complaint based upon the ground that Brigham Young, by assuming to act in the matter for the church, without authority, rendered himself liable. The demurrer having been sustained, I drew a complaint, as requested, and sought Mr. Bates for the purpose of having him verify it, but instead of finding him, I ascertained that he had entered into a written marriage contract with a "doctoress," and that they had left the Territory.

In the chapter of Bancroft's History of Utah, on the subject of the Mountain Meadows massacre trial, page 565, N. 46, it is stated that Sutherland & Bates were the attorneys of the first presidency." They were not employed by Lee. After the evidence of the prosecution at the first trial was introduced, as it implicated both Brigham and Geo. A. Smith, those attorneys protracted the trial until the ex parte affidavits of Brigham and Smith, hereinafter mentioned, arrived. They then offered them in evidence, but upon the objection of the prosecution they were rejected. As the evidence tended strongly to show that both Brigham and Geo. A. Smith were accomplices of the crime, they sought to break its force by said ex parte affidavits. No doubt these affidavits had that effect upon members of the Mormon church, but not upon outsiders, for when these affidavits were critically examined, in the light of well established facts, the inference that both Brigham and Smith were accessories became more apparent. The context of the affidavit of Brigham was as follows:

 
[p. 115]

"First: State your age and the present condition of your health, and whether in your present condition you could travel to attend in person at Beaver the court now sitting there. If not state why.

"Answer: To the first interrogatory he says: I am in my seventy-fifth year. It would be a great risk, both to my health and life for me to travel to Beaver at the present time. I am, and have been for some time, an invalid.

"Second: What offices, either ecclesiastical, civil or military, did you hold in the year 1857?

"Answer: I was Governor of this Territory, ex officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, during the year 1857.

"Third: State the condition of affairs between the Territory of Utah and the Federal Government in the summer and fall of 1857.

"Answer: In May, or June, 1857, United States mails for Utah were stopped by the Government, and all communication by mail was shut off. An army of the United States was en route for Utah, with the ostensible design of destroying the Latter-day Saints, according to the reports that reached us from the East.

"Fourth: Were there any United States judges here during the summer and fall of 1857?

"Answer: To the best of my recollection there was no United States judge here in the latter part of 1857.

"Fifth: State what you know about trains of emigrants passing through the Territory to the West, and particularly about a company from Arkansas, en route for California, passing through this city in the summer or fall of 1857.

"Answer: As usual, emigrant trains were passing through our Territory for the West. I heard it rumored that a company from Arkansas en route to California had passed through the city.

"Sixth: Was ordered away from Salt Lake City by yoursethis Arkansas company of emigrantslf, or anyone in authority under you?

"Answer: No, not that I know of. I never heard of any such thing, and certainly no such order was given by the Acting Governor.

"Seventh: Was any counsel or instruction given by any person to the citizens of Utah, not to sell grain, or trade with the emigrant trains passing through Utah at that time? If so, what were those instructions and that counsel?

"Answer: Yes; counsel and advice was given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but let them have sufficient for themselves, if they were out. The simple reason for this was that for several years our  
[p. 116]
crops have been short, and the prospect was at that time that we might have trouble with the United States army then en route for this place, and we wanted to reserve the grain for food. The citizens of the Territory were counseled not to feed grain even to their own stock. No person was ever punished or called in question for furnishing supplies to the emigrants within my knowledge.

"Eighth: When did you first hear of the attack and destruction of the Arkansas company at Mountain Meadows in September, 1857?

"Answer: I did not learn anything of the attack or destruction of the Arkansas company until some time after it had occurred—then only by a floating rumor.

"Ninth: Did John D. Lee report to you at any time after this massacre, what had been done at that massacre, and if so, what did you reply to him in reference thereto?

"Answer: Within some two or three months after the massacre, he called at my office and had much to say with regard to the Indians; their being stirred up to anger and threatening the settlements of the whites, and then commenced giving an account of the massacre. I told him to stop, as from what I had already learned by rumor, I did not wish my feelings harrowed with a recital of the details.

"Tenth: Did Philip Klingensmith call at your office with John D. Lee at the time of Lee making his report, and did you at this time order Smith to turn over the stock to Lee, and order them not to talk about the massacre?

"Answer: No; he did not call with John D. Lee, and I have no recollection of his ever speaking to me, or I to him, concerning the massacre, or anything pertaining to the property.

"Eleventh: Did you ever give any directions concerning the property taken from the emigrants at the Mountain Meadows massacre, or know anything as to its disposition?

"Answer: No; I never gave any directions concerning the property taken from the company of emigrants at the Mountain Meadows massacre, nor did I know anything of that property or its disposal, and I do not to this day, except from public rumor.

"Twelfth: Why did you not, as Governor of Utah Territory, institute proceedings forthwith to investigate that massacre and bring the guilty authors to justice?

"Answer: Because another governor had been appointed by the President of the United States, and was then on the way here to take my place, and I did not know how soon he might arrive and because the United States judges were not in the Territory.

"Thirteenth: Did you, about the tenth of September; receive a communication from Isaac C. Haight, or any  
[p. 117]
other person of Cedar City, concerning a company of emigrants called the Arkansas company?

"Answer: I did receive a communication from Isaac C. Haight, or John D. Lee, who was then a farmer for the Indians.

"Fourteenth: Have you that communication?

"Answer: I have not. I have made diligent search for it, but cannot find it.

"Fifteenth: Did you answer that communication? "Answer: I did, to Isaac C. Haight, who was then Acting President at Cedar City.

"Sixteenth: Will you state the substance of your letter to him?

"Answer: Yes; it was to let this company of emigrants, and all companies of emigrants, pass through the country unmolested, and to allay the angry feelings of the Indians as much as possible.

"(Signed) BRIGHAM YOUNG. "Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of July, A. D. 1875. "WILLIAM CLAYTON, Notary Public."

Brigham admits that he was governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs. Note the flimsy excuse which he makes in his twelfth answer for neglecting to investigate the massacre and bring the guilty parties to justice. Governor Cummings, Brigham's successor, did not arrive until March 12, 1858, six months after the massacre. His second excuse in that answer is as ridiculous, and even more damaging than the first flimsy one. It did not require the presence of a United States judge to investigate the massacre. If the presence of a judge had been necessary, the probate judge of the county in which the crime was committed, under the provisions of the statutes of the Territory, exercised general criminal jurisdiction. An investigation could have been made by a justice of the peace, acting as a committing magistrate, and both the territorial marshal and the sheriff had authority to act as executive officers in the matter, and that both the attorney general of the Territory and the district attorney of the county had authority to institute proceedings. All of the territorial officers named were members of Brigham's church and owed their appointment or election to him, for he exercised at that time absolute control of the political affairs of the Territory. The probate courts continued for many years after the massacre, and until the decision of the case of Ferris  
[p. 118]
v. Higley, in 1874, to exercise general criminal jurisdiction, and the executive and prosecuting officers mentioned continued to perform the duties of executive and prosecuting officers conferred by the Utah statutes until the passage of the Poland bill in 1874, and, under the decision of the United States supreme court in the case of Englebrecht v. Clinton, during all of that time were the proper executive and prosecuting officers of the district courts in all cases arising under territorial laws.

The perpetrators of the massacre were subject to prosecution only under the territorial statute defining and punishing the crime of homicide. At any time during which said officers exercised the authority conferred upon them by the territorial legislature, Brigham Young, by exercising his power could beyond any doubt have legitimately caused the guilty parties to be indicted and punished. And as fifty-two high officers and members of the church of which he was the president participated in the crime, it was his manifest duty, both as an officer and as a citizen and church leader, to exercise his power and influence to accomplish that righteous end. It would undoubtedly have been effected long before the lapse of seventeen years, if he had, in earnest, publicly ordered the prosecution of the perpetrators of the massacre. For, such an order made in good faith would have been regarded as a divine command by most of the inhabitants of the Territory and the Mormon civil authorities.

Judge Cradlebaugh, of the second judicial district, held a term of court at Provo in March, 1859, ten months after Brigham had made the offer to Governor Cummings referred to hereafter, and impaneled a grand jury of Mormons, especially instructing them to investigate the massacre. In his charge he said:

"* * * I said to you in the outset that a great number of cases had come to my knowledge of crimes having been committed through the country, and I shall take the liberty of naming a few of them. The persons committing those offenses have not been prosecuted, the reasons why I cannot tell, but it strikes me that outside influences have prevented it. If you do your duty you will not neglect to inquire into those matters, or allow the offenders to go unpunished. I may mention the Mountain Meadows murders, where a whole train was cut off, except a few children who were too young  
[p. 119]
to give evidence in court. It has been claimed that this offense was committed by Indians, but there is evidence that there were others who were engaging in it besides. When the Indians commit crimes they are not so discriminate as to save children; they would not be so particular as to save the children and kill the rest. I, say, that you may look at all the crimes that have been committed in the western country by the Indians and there is no case where they have been so careful as to save the innocent children. But if this be not enough, we have evidence to prove that there were others engaged in it.

"A large body of persons leaving Cedar City, armed, and after getting away were organized, and went and returned with the spoil. Now, there are persons who know that there were others engaged in the crime; I brought a young man with me who saw persons go out in wagons with arms, others on horseback; they were away a day or two and came back with the spoil. The Indians complain that in the distribution of the property they did not get their share; they seem to think that the parties engaged with them kept the best and gave them the worst. The chief, there (Kanosh), is equally amenable to law, and liable to be punished, and I sup-pose it is well known that he was engaged in assisting to exterminate the hundred persons that were in that train. I might name to you persons who were there; a great number of them I have had named to me. And yet, notwithstanding this crime has been committed, there has been no effort made to punish those individuals. I say, then, gentlemen, it is your duty to look after that, and if it is a fact that they have been guilty of that offense, indict them, send for them, and then have them brought before this court. * * * It is not pleasant to talk about these things, but the crimes have been committed, and, if you desire, you can investigate them. My desire is that the responsibility shall be with the grand jury, and not with the court; all the responsibility shall be with you, and the question is with you, whether you will bring those persons to trial."

Judge Cradlebaugh kept the grand jury in session for two weeks, but they failed to pay any attention to his instructions, and after being severely reprimanded by him were discharged. An opportunity was thus afforded Brigham, if he had been in earnest in the offer to Governor Cummings to lend his aid in bringing the guilty to justice; but instead of doing so he opposed the efforts of the judge and disparaged him, as shown in his scurrilous letter to Secretary Belknap, written March 12, 1872, in which he said:

 
[p. 120]

"I pledged myself to Alford Cummings, Governor of Utah Territory, to lend him and the court every assistance in my power in men and means to thoroughly investigate the Mountain Meadows massacre, and bring the guilty parties to justice. That offer I have made again and again, and although it has not been accepted, I have neither doubt nor fear that the perpetrators of that tragedy will meet their just reward. But sending an armed force is not the means of furthering the ends of justice, although it may serve an excellent purpose in exciting popular clamor against the Mormons. In 1859 Judge Cradlebaugh employed a military force to attempt the arrest of those alleged criminals. He engaged in all about four hundred men, some of whom were civilians, reputed gamblers, thieves, and other camp-followers, who were' doubtless in-tended for jurors, as his associate, Judge Eccles, had just done in another district; but these accomplished absolutely nothing further than plundering hen roosts and rendering themselves obnoxious to the citizens on their line of march."

He could have brought the guilty parties to justice any time during a period of sixteen years, if he chose to exercise the power, which the following extract from a sermon delivered by him in March, 1863, shows that he knew he possessed:

"When a company of emigrants were traveling on the southern route to California, nearly all of the company were destroyed by Indians. The unfortunate affair has been laid to the charge of the whites. A certain judge that was in the Territory wanted the whole army to accompany him into Iron county to try the whites for the murder of that company of emigrants. I told Governor Cummings that if he would take an unprejudiced judge into that district where that horrid affair occurred, I would pledge myself that every man in that region around about should be forthcoming when called for, to be condemned or acquitted, as an impartial and unprejudiced judge and jury should decide, and I pledged him that the courts should be protected from any violation or hindrance in the prosecution of the law; and if any were guilty of the blood of those who suffered in the Mountain Meadows massacre, let them suffer the penalty of the law: but to this day they have not touched the matter for fear the Mormons will be acquitted from the charge of having a hand in it, and our enemies would thus be deprived of a favorite topic to talk about when urging hostilities against us—'The Mountain Meadows massacre! only to think of the Mountain Meadows massacre!' "

 
[p. 121]

If Brigham made the foregoing "pledge" to Gov. Cummings, he well knew that under the statutes, hereinbefore referred to, the district court could only use Mormon instrumentalities in the prosecution, and that without a special order from him to the grand jury and the Mormon officials of the court, no indictment could be found. The offer was one of Brigham's crafty tricks, for he knew if it were accepted that any efforts made in pursuance thereof would be abortive.

As Governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs, it was Brigham's imperative duty to investigate the massacre himself, after it was reported to him by Lee, even if the Indians alone had committed it; but he failed to do so. An investigation by him would have soon shown the complicity of at least fifty-two members of the church of which he was president, seer and revelator, and that among those members were several of his subordinate church officers.

Lee alleged in his confession that when attending the October Conference of the church, a month or six weeks after the massacre, he made a full statement of the facts to Brigham and gave him the names of the Mormons engaged. If this was true, an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the facts was wholly unnecessary. Being in possession of that knowledge, Brigham's simple official duty only required him to have the guilty parties arrested, and collect and sell the property of the emigrants for the use of the unfortunate children who were spared. His failure to take charge of and sell the property of the massacred emigrants, and procure the arrest and conviction of the guilty can only be rationally accounted for on the ground that he was an accessory either before or after the commission of the crime.

In answer to the eleventh question in his affidavit: "Did you ever give any directions concerning the property taken from the emigrants at the Mountain Meadows massacre, or know anything as to its disposition?" Brigham replied: "No; I never gave any directions concerning the property taken from the company of emigrants at the Mountain Meadows massacre, nor did I know anything of that property or its disposal, and do not to this day, except from public rumor."

He must have known that seventeen little children had been saved, for two of them were given shortly after the  
[p. 122]
massacre to Mrs. Cook, who at the time was a teacher of music in his family at Salt Lake City, and who afterwards became a client of mine and stated to me these facts. The other children were scattered around among the Mormons. The number of small children showed that the emigrant train was a very large one, and that the emigrants must have had in their possession a large amount of property.

That Brigham fully knew is shown by an extract from the report of Mr. Forney, a special agent sent out to investigate the affair, and to collect the children and send them to Arkansas to friends and relatives. Concerning the wrongful and unconscionable claims presented to him by a number of the inhabitants of the Territory relating to the orphans surviving the massacre, he says:

"In pursuance to directions from the Indian department, I forward the accounts of expenses incurred in recovering, maintaining, and finally sending to Fort Leavenworth, the seventeen children surviving the Mountain Meadows massacre, in September, 1857. I respectfully invite your attention to Abstract No. 1, which contains the accounts of expenses for said children. I rejected a number of claims against the government for these children, for different alleged expenses. There were a number of claims for purchasing the children from the Indians, by persons with whom Mr. Hamblin [Brigham's interpreter] found them; when it is a well-known fact that they did not live among the Indians one hour. I charged to the account of the children part of Mr. Hamblin's wages. The amount of claims presented to me on account of the children by persons in the southern portion of Territory, amount to over seven thousand dollars, of which amount I only paid twenty-nine hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy-seven cents. Those I have paid I considered strictly and entirely proper." (Senate Executive Document No. 42, page 71, q. v. further on.)

If Brigham Young had possessed official integrity or common humanity, and really was not an accessory, he would not have been guilty of the criminal nonfeasance in office which is shown by answer eleven, but would have promptly taken vigorous steps to prevent the unfortunate children spared from being robbed by the wretches who murdered their parents and elder brothers and sisters. His criminal nonfeasance in this respect, and in failing to take any steps to bring the criminals to justice, in view of the facts dis-  
[p. 123]
closed, was such as only an accessory either before or after the fact would have been guilty of.

Not only does his criminal nonfeasance in office show his complicity as accessory, but there are positive statements and other matters which strongly tend to prove that fact. John D. Lee in his confession states:

"When I arrived in the city, I went to President Young's house, and gave him a full detailed statement of the whole affair from first to last. I gave him the names of every man that was present at the massacre. He said to me, 'When you get home I want you to sit down and write a long letter, and give me an account of the affair, charging it to the Indians. You sign the letter as "Farmer to the Indians," and direct it to me as Indian agent. I can make use of such a letter to keep off dangerous and troublesome inquiries.'"

Lee in substance further stated that in pursuance of that request he sent the following letter to Brigham Young, and thought he had managed the affair nicely:

"Harmony, Washington Co. Ut. "November 20th, 1857.

"To his Excellency, B. Young, exofficio Superintendent of Indian Affairs.

"Dear Sir: My report under the date of May 11th, 1857, relative to the Indians over whom I have charge as Farmer, showed a friendly relation between them and the whites, which doubtless would have continued to increase, had not the white man been the first aggressor, as was the case with Capt. Fancher's company of emigrants passing through to California about the middle of September last, on Corn creek, fifteen miles south of Fillmore City, Millard county. The company there poisoned the meat of an ox which they gave to the Pahvant Indians to eat, causing four of them to die immediately, besides poisoning a number more. The company also poisoned the water where they encamped, killing the cattle of the settlers. This unguarded policy, planned in wickedness by this company, raised the ire of the Indians, which soon spread to the southern tribe, firing them up with revenge till blood was in their path, and as the breach according to their traditions was a national one, consequently any portion of the nation was liable to atone for that offense. About the 22nd of September, Captain Fancher and company fell victims to their wrath near Mountain Meadows; their cattle and horses were shot down in every direction, and their wagons and property mostly committed to the flames." * * * * *

 
[p. 124]

In the ninth answer of his affidavit, Brigham admits that Lee had called at his office, and when the latter commenced giving an account of the massacre, he told Lee to stop, as from what he had already learned by rumor, he did not wish his "feelings harrowed up with the recital of the details." That he possessed such sensitive and humane feelings, as this answer was evidently intended to convey, is disproved by the numerous cut-throat, blood-atoning sermons delivered by him to members of his church previous to the massacre. It is "passing strange" if Brigham with his known sagacity did not discover the untruthfulness of Lee's letter. He certainly must have known, and before Lee's letter—written more than three months after the massacre—that seventeen children were spared. The existence of this fact was what first caused federal officials of the Territory to suspect that the massacre was not the work of the Indians, and led to the investigation by them which disclosed that the crime was committed by Mormons, as it was generally known that in massacres by Indians they kill, indiscriminately, both children and adults. Again, if the massacre had been the work of Indians, some of them would have been killed by the emigrants in defense of their wives and children, as many of the Mormons would have been if their strategy had not been successful. It is strange, "passing strange," if the failure of Lee to state in that letter that Indians were killed did not attract the attention of Brigham and arouse his suspicion that Lee's letter was untrue. It is evident, however, that that letter was among many of Brigham's foxy devices to divert attention from unpleasant facts. Again, Klingensmith testified that at the October conference following the massacre he met Lee, who said to him that he had told Brigham Young everything that had transpired; that the next day Lee, Charley Hopkins and he met in Brigham's office, and that Brigham told Klingensmith, who had control of the property of the emigrants, to turn it over to Lee, as he was Indian agent anyway, and the disposition of the property properly belonged to him; and also said: "What you know about this affair, do not tell to any one, do not talk about it among yourselves."

 
[p. 125]

At the second trial of John D. Lee the following was elicted in the examination of Jacob Hamblin by William Howard; United States attorney:

Q. Tell what else Lee told you. A. Well, he spoke of many little incidents.

Q. Mention any of those incidents. A. There were two young ladies brought out.

Q. By whom? A. By an Indian chief at Cedar City, and he asked him (Lee) what he should do with them, and the Indian killed one and he killed the other.

Q. Tell the story he told you. A. That is about it.

Q. Where were these young girls brought from; did he say? A. From a thicket of oak brush where they were concealed.

Q. Tell just what he said about that. A. The Indian killed one and he cut the other one's throat, is what he said. Q. Who cut the other's throat? A. Mr. Lee.

Q. Tell us all the details of the conversation and killing. A. Well, he said they were all killed, as he supposed; that the chief of Cedar City then brought out the young ladies.

Q. What did he say the chief said to him? A. Asked what should be done with them.

Q. What else did the chief say? A. He said they didn't ought to be killed.

Q. Did the chief say to Lee why they should not be killed? A. Well, he said they were pretty and he wanted to save them.

Q. What did he tell you that he said to the chief? A. That according to the orders [the orders he had] they were too old and big to let live.

Q. What did he say he told the chief to do? A. The chief shot one of them.

Q. Who killed the other? A. He did, he said.

Q. How? A. He threw her down and cut her throat.

Q. Did you ascertain in that conversation, or subsequently, where it was they were killed? A. When I got home I asked my Indian boy and we went out to where this took place, and we saw two young ladies lying there with their throats cut.

Q. What was the condition of their bodies? A. They were rather in a putrefied state; their throats were cut; I didn't look further than that.

Q. What were their ages? A. Looked about fourteen or fifteen.

This witness also testified that Lee told him the other circumstances of the massacre and how the emigrants were be-  
[p. 126]
trayed and induced to surrender. On cross-examination by Mr. Bishop, he answered as follows:

Q. Have you ever given this conversation that you had with Lee to anyone—to the public generally? A. I have no recollection of it.

Q. Have you ever given a report of it to any of your superiors in the church, or officers over you? A. Well, I did speak of it to President Young and George A. Smith.

Q. Did you give them the whole facts? A. I gave them some more than I have here, because I recollected more of it.

Q. When did you do that? A. Pretty soon after it happened.

Q. You are certain you told it fuller than you have told it here on the stand? A. I told them everything I could.

Q. Who else did you tell it to? A. I have no recollection of telling it to any one else.

Q. Why have you not told it before this time? A. Because I did not feel like it.

Q. Why did you not feel like it? You felt and knew that a great crime had been committed, did you not? A. I felt that a great crime had been committed, but Brigham Young told me that "as soon as we can get a court of justice we will ferret this thing out—but till then, don't say anything about it."

Jacob Hamblin was Brigham Young's Indian interpreter, and his testimony not only furnishes additional proof that Brigham Young was informed of the facts of the massacre shortly after its perpetration, but also corroborates the statements of Lee and Klingensmith that Brigham advised them not to talk about the occurrence.

Again, if Brigham was not an accomplice, why did he employ Sutherland & Bates to defend Lee? The letter of Lee was one of Brigham's devices to conceal from the public and the officers of the federal government the real participants of the crime, and the dishonest use he made of it is shown by the following letter written by him over a year after the massacre, and after being fully informed as to its horrible details by Lee and Jacob Hamblin:

"Office of Superintendent of Indian Affairs.

"Salt Lake City, Utah, Jan. 6, 1858.

"Hon. James W. Denver, Commissioner of Indian Affairs,

Washington, D. C.

"Sir: On or about the middle of September, a company of emigrants traveling by the southern route to California poisoned the meat of an ox that died and gave it to the Indians to  
[p. 127]
eat. This caused the immediate death of four of their tribe and poisoning several others. This company also poisoned the water where they were encamped. This occurred at Corn creek, fifteen miles south of Fillmore City. I quote from a letter written to me by John D. Lee, Farmer of the Indians in Iron and Washington county. 'About the 22nd of September Capt. Fancher and a company fell victims to the Indians' wrath near Mountain Meadows; their cattle and horses were cut down in every direction and their wagons and property mostly committed to the flames. Lamentable as this case truly is, it is the only natural consequence of that fatal policy which treats the Indians like the wolves or other ferocious beasts.* * *"

No one knew better than Brigham that this letter was untrue, and that the charges there made against the emigrants were concocted by the assassins who murdered them. The letter, in connection with Lee's viewed in the light of the facts disclosed respecting the massacre, and Brigham Young's relations thereto, is most damaging, and is additional evidence that he was an accessory after, if not before, the fact.

The following extracts from newspapers show how Brigham's affidavit was regarded by the hundreds who commented thereon:

"As a literary curiosity, Brigham Young's affidavit deserves respectable consideration. It is indeed calculated to put the prophet in quite a new light before the world. Evidently there has been a terrible mistake somewhere. He has never been the autocrat supposed. He has never had authority over the Mormons. He did not know anything of the Mountain Meadows massacre until, by floating rumor, two months after it. But when at length, in a casual way it came to his knowledge that the people of his church had butchered one hundred and thirty defenseless men, women and children, he was so overcome that he could not bear to hear the details. And then according to his statement, he absolutely dropped the matter. Seeing, however, that his neglect to take any action might appear strange to the world, he offered as an explanation of this that 'I did not examine into the matter because another governor was appointed, and enroute to the Territory; and because no United States judges were here.' Really, this is too bad. It is adding insult to injury for a man in Young's position to affront the intelligence of the nation with so bald and so puerile a tissue of flummery as this. So clumsily is it constructed, moreover, that it affords cumulative proof that he possessed the necessary authority in the premises."—Sacramento Record.

 
[p. 128]

"Brigham Young's affidavit in the Mountain Meadows massacre case at Beaver, Utah, is a very thin document. He pretends that he never really got an account of the affair. Vague rumors he admits had reached his ears of a deed over which every family in the United States was shuddering, but neither enough nor sufficient definite information to suggest to him the desirability of investigating the matter. Nay, it is even added in the affidavit that when Lee, a long time after the affair, proposed to tell him something about it, he refused to have his feelings harrowed up by a recital of the details. The transparent hypocrisy of the entire affidavit is the strongest evidence of Brigham's complicity in the whole business."—St. Albion (Vt.) Advertiser.

"The Mormons are making a desperate effort to clear Brigham Young of the Mountain Meadows massacre, but they will never succeed in convincing the world that the old sinner was not guilty of participation in the preliminary to that inhuman outrage, nor that the work of butchery was not perpetrated with his sanction, if not by his positive command."—Leavenworth Commercial.

"Brigham Young was the High Priest and Governor, and is still the head of the church. No one who knows the extent of his power over his dupes, and the spirit in which he wielded this power so long as he thought himself at a safe distance from the eyes of the world, can doubt for a moment that this massacre lies at his door, either as a result of his direct order or at least the natural and necessary result of his teachings."—Helena (Mont.) Herald. On pages 708-709, Vol. I, of Whitney's history, is the following:

"Of the militia ordered or lured to the scene of the massacre by Lee and Klingensmith, nearly all were young men who acted in innocence of evil under military orders; in most instances they took no part in the actual killing. It was not until 1870 that Lee's complicity was established; and when upon investigation and recommendation of Apostle Erastus Snow made to President Young, it was reported and unanimously carried in council of the Apostles held in Salt Lake City, that John D. Lee be expelled from the church."

At the time of the massacre Brigham Young was not only governor and Indian superintendent, but also, under the organic act of the Territory, commander-in-chief of the militia, and yet according to Whitney, Lee's complicity in the massacre was not established until thirteen years thereafter. Up to  
[p. 129]
that time neither Lee nor any of the other numerous participants, except Klingensmith, who had revealed the crime, had been disciplined by the church, but continued in full fellowship; nor were any of the numerous church members, except Lee, Haight and Klingensmith, who were active participants in the massacre, ever disfellowshiped by the church on account of their active participation in that brutal crime; nor has any of them except Lee ever been punished.

It appears from the testimony that Geo. A. Smith—who, according to Whitney's history, left Salt Lake City on his journey south at the end of July—delivered a sermon in the public square of Beaver City in which he stated that the emigrants were coming, and forbade the people to sell them anything, under penalty of being disfellowshiped, and that other sermons to the same effect were delivered by him. In his ex parte affidavit introduced in evidence by Mr. Howard, district attorney, at the second trial of Lee, Smith admits that he preached several times on his way south, and also on his return; that he advised the people to furnish all emigrant companies passing through the Territory with what they might actually want for breadstuff for the support of themselves and families; but advised the pepole not to feed their grain to their own stock, nor to sell it to the emigrants for that purpose."

Brigham, to strengthen Smith's assertion, in his answer to the seventh question asked in his affidavit, stated that he had given the same advice. Both Brigham's and Smith's affidavits were sworn to on the same day, before the same notary public, and were evidently intended to be used for the same purpose, i. e., to break the force of the testimony in the first Lee trial, which showed that Geo. A. Smith on his trip south had forbidden the people to deal with the emigrants. The affidavit of Smith raises the question of veracity between himself and the witnesses who testified that he forbade the people to trade with the emigrants. Which of these contradictory statements is true must be determined by the extrinsic testimony and circumstances throwing light upon the question. The reason why, as stated by Smith, he was moved to advise his people to furnish the emigrants with necessary food is not apparent, nor can it be imagined why he should do so. Did he fear that it would not be done unless he advised it? It is  
[p. 130]
not presumable that he had any such fears, for his people were members of a civilized and Christian race of men, and to refuse to sell necessary food to an emigrant company among which were so many women and little children, or to any company, would have been characteristic only of barbarians; nor is it presumable that if he had given such advice that the emigrants would have experienced any difficulty whatever in obtaining necessary food. But if Smith's sermons were such as stated by Robert Kershaw and Mrs. Thompson it is presumable—as Smith was one of the counselors of Brigham Young and therefore a member of the high priesthood—that in view of the consequences of violating the oaths of obedience to the priesthood the emigrants would be unable to procure necessary food.

The reason assigned by both Smith and Brigham for advising the people not to sell their grain to emigrants is very flimsy. A great majority of the trains passing through the Territory took the northern route, by way of Soda Springs. A very limited number ever took the southern route on account of the hardship of crossing the unavoidable sandy desert. Nearly all the trains were hauled by oxen, and very few by mules. All the animals engaged in moving the trains subsisted on the natural pasturage of the plains. No grain was carried to feed the work-animals, and but a very limited, quantity was carried to feed to saddle-horses used for scouting purposes, and usually there were not more than two or three of such. If an emigrant was in need of grain for feed he would certainly purchase oats or barley and not breadstuff, and he would never think of feeding grain to oxen. I will venture to say that the grain purchased annually by emigrants passing over the southern route in comparison to the local supply was not more than as a drop in a bucket of water.

Smith's journey through the south of Utah apparently was a natural proceeding, often indulged in by the directing heads of the church as a sort of a verbal roundup and inspection of the faithful. And almost simultaneously with the appearance of Smith, according to all accruing testimony, the local mouthpieces of the church began sermons in which they informed their adherents of the approaching emigrants, and not only forbade the sale or barter of anything with the in-  
[p. 131]
vaders, but denounced them as mobocrats and enemies of the Mormons, and various other covert slanders. This statement in Lee's confession fully indicates Smith's design respecting the emigrants:

"In August, about ten days before the emigrants arrived, Gen. Geo. A. Smith called upon me. He said, 'I have sent down here by the old boss, Brigham Young, to instruct the brethren of different settlements not to sell any grain to our enemies. Suppose an emigrant train should come along through the southern country, making threats against our people and bragging of the part they took in helping to kill the prophets—what do you think the brethren would do with them? Would they be permitted to go their way, or would the brethren pitch into them and give them a good drubbing?' To which I replied: 'I am sure they would be wiped out if they had been making threats against our people. Unless emigrants have a pass from Brigham Young or some one in authority, they will certainly never get safely through this country.' My reply pleased him very much; he laughed heartily, and said: 'Do you really believe the brethren would make it lively for such a train?' I said 'Yes, sir. I know they will, unless they are protected by a pass or positive order of Governor Young, as the people are all bitter against the Gentiles, and full of religious zeal, and anxious to avenge the blood of the prophets.' The only reply which he made, was to the effect that on his way down from Salt Lake City, he had had a long talk with Major Haight on the same subject, and that Haight had assured him that the emigrants who came along without a pass from Governor Young could not escape from the Territory. We then rode along for some distance, when he again turned to me and said 'Brother Lee, I am satisfied that the brethren are under the influence of the reformation, and they will do just as you say they will with the wicked emigrants that come through the country, making threats and abusing our people.' I have been told by Joseph Wood, Thomas T. Willis and many others, that they heard Geo. A. Smith preach in Cedar City during that trip, and that he told the people that the emigrants were coming, and that they must not sell the company any grain or provisions, for they were a mob of villains and outlaws, and enemies of God and the Mormon people."

Mr. Bishop, who was Lee's real attorney, in his preface to Lee's confession, stated that:

"After all chance of escape had vanished and death was certain, the better nature of Lee overcame his superstition and fanaticism, and he gave me his confession of the facts con-  
[p. 132]
nected with the massacre and requested me to publish the same. Why he refused to confess at an earlier day and save his own life by placing the guilt where it belonged, is a question which is answered by the statement that he was still a slave to his endowment and Danite oaths, and trusted until too late to the promises of protection by Brigham Young."

A false statement respecting Smith could not benefit Lee in any possible way, nor could he gain anything by falsely implicating any innocent person, and, in view of the well known facts and circumstances, it is clear that he has not done so in his confession.

The following synopsis of my closing speech to the jury at the first trial of Lee was made by Mr. Lockley, then the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, who was present at the trial:

"Mr. Baskin made the closing argument for the prosecution. He commented upon the charge of the opposing counsel, that the case was being tried by popular clamor, and that the prosecution addressed itself to the prejudice of the audience and jury, and said by the severe arraignment of the people of the United States. and the peoples' attorneys, a stranger would be in doubt who was really on trial. It had been admitted that murder was committed, heinous in nature and revolting in its details. The fact is well known that at the time of the massacre not over one hundred Gentiles were living in the Territory. The speaker dwelt briefly upon the organization of the Nauvoo Legion, and said that it was a militia body obnoxious to public sentiment, a brutal instrument of an ecclesiastical despotism, and part and parcel of the Mormon church. Its highest officers were leaders of that church.' He severely criticized the length of time the crime had been allowed to slumber, and quoted from the Utah statutes to show that the execution of the law was in the hands of the Mormon authorities; that the territorial marshal appointed by the legislature summoned the grand and petit jurors; that the attorney general appointed by the same body was the prosecuting officer of the district courts until last year, when an act of Congress changed the judicial system of Utah, vesting the power to prosecute criminals in the United States district attorney, and that the probate courts exercised general criminal jurisdiction. He said 'the blame for delay in instituting a judicial investigation into the violation of crime rests solely with the Mormon authorities, who, having the power entirely in their own hands, have thrown every impediment in the way of executing the law.' To make this disgraceful fact more apparent, the speaker pointed to one of the prisoner's counsel who long held the office of prosecuting attorney for the judicial district, and whose duty during his tenure of office, it was to bring his client to justice, and said that 'Congress at last having  
[p. 133]
acted, unpunished crimes are being investigated and offenders who have long enjoyed security brought to the bar of justice.'

"'The counsel for the defense says that we ask you to "convict Lee, because he is a Mormon." Such an assertion is an insult to your intelligence. The first witness described the scene at the Mountain Meadows a few days after the occurrence, and the second witness a few weeks later. Their testimony established the corpus delicti. Klingensmith, a former bishop of the Mormon church, because of his position, was made a conspicuous actor in the crime. Because he was an active participant, and testified to that fact, he has been made the subject of vituperation and invective, and persistent effort is made to break down his testimony. If it were all stricken out, the charge is still conclusively proved. The prisoner's counsel have asked to what possible use a man like Klingensmith can be put. He is fit to obey counsel, a cardinal duty enjoined upon every good Saint. He is fit to be a polygamist bishop, and help build up "the Kingdom." He is fit to carry out the orders of his ecclesiastical superiors, and murder and spoliate at the command of alleged God-chosen servants. So long as he confined himself to these functions he was fit for preferment in the hierarchial ranks and not a word against his character was spoken, but now that he has come out from the charnel house, and has shaken his soul clear of the delusions that held it in bondage, and shown a willingness to atone for his past offenses by ridding his conscience of this, appalling crime, he instantly loses all of his past sanctity and becomes "a monster of such hideous mien, that to be hated needs but to be seen".'

"'From the accumulation of testimony upon the point there can be no doubt that the emigrants surrendered their arms and committed to Lee the care of their young children, and then followed in the death procession. Defendant's counsel asked the jury to believe that this was done in good faith with the intention of rescuing the emigrants from the Indians who were menacing them. Is not such a request an insult to common intelligence? If deliverance was meant, why compel them to surrender their arms? Why take from the mother's breast the nursing baby? Why lead them into an ambuscade of Indians? The whole execution of the plot shows murderous design, and to believe otherwise is to do violence to common sense. When the victims were slain, the whites dispersed unmolested to their homes. If the Indians had committed the massacre, their passions being whetted with blood, they would have further gratified their savage rage by an assault upon the white men present. But the testimony shows that, instead, Indians tricked out in the clothing of the slain, went to Cedar City and washed bloody garments in the ditches, and that there was no excitement among them, and none of the citizens feared any attack; that Brigham Young was governor of the Territory and exofficio Indian superintendent. Had he been an honest and faithful official—had be been a Christian  
[p. 134]
gentleman—he would have diligently collected the vast property of the emigrants and sold it—at the high prices that such property brought at that time in the Territory—for the benefit of the innocent little children, made fatherless and motherless by the Mormon fiends who ruthlessly murdered their fathers, mothers, and their older brothers and sisters. But instead of performing that official and humane duty, he suffered much of the property to be sold at public auction to the assassins of the emigrants, and many of the cattle to be branded with the church brand.

"'If there is a man on this jury who has been through that sink of iniquity, the endowment house, and wears endowment garments on his limbs, he will not find a verdict according to the law and testimony. He parted with his manhood when he swore blashphemous oaths which bind him a lifelong slave to the Mormon priesthood. He divested himself of his individuality, and is under obligation to think and act as he is directed.

"'Judge Sutherland asks the question, Why did not the witness Klingensmith and Joel White object to the massacre, instead of engaging in it? I answer, simply because they were members of an organization in which upon their oaths, they had bound themselves to obey the priesthood, and in which they had been made cowards—craven cowards and obedient serfs. All of the defendants attorneys who have addressed you, have denounced Bill Hickman and have severely criticized the prosecution for summoning him as a witness. They failed, however, to state what has made him odious and notorious. Gentlemen, it was his connection with Brigham Young, and the crimes which he, as one of the chief Danites of the Mormon church, committed. Both Hickman, and [also] the fifty Mormons who participated in the massacre, have made themselves infamous by obeying their church leaders. I have no doubt that both Lee and the church officials of Cedar City under whose orders that crime was committed, at the October Conference following the massacre, which they attended, as usual, partoook of the sacrament commemorative of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ, whose mission on the earth was one of mercy, and who said "Blessed are the Merciful."

"'With what joy must the beleaguered emigrants have hailed the approach of that white flag, the emblem of peace and mercy, in the hands of a man whose white skin denoted that he was a Christian and coming to their rescue? My God! what a sad mistake they made when they trusted that man who, with a lying tongue, induced them to give up their arms which was their only means of defense; and Oh! what must have been their horror when the onslaught upon them in their defenseless condition was began by the white men whose protection had been promised, and by the secreted Indians upon their helpless women and children. The horror of the scene is indescribable. About one hundred and twenty-five of the survivors of the emigrants were foully betrayed under a flag of truce, and in the space of a few  
[p. 135]
minutes after the assault upon them began they were ruthlessly murdered by fifty-two white men called "Latter-day Saints," aided by an ambuscade of Indians. The evidence shows that the Mormons in the vincinity of the massacre, under the influence of the infamous organization to which they had subjected themselves, had lost their manhood and had become so servile that they made no effort to prevent that awful crime, and when those who participated in it were ordered out by their church leaders, they went to the scene of the slaughter like dumb cattle; and when they were at the Meadows, as testified to by young Pierce, Pollock and other witnesses, the talk among them was that the emigrants were to be destroyed; and yet not one among that assemblage of at least fifty-two members of the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints possessed manhood enough to make the least objection to the commission of that atrocious crime.

"'What was done with the property of the emigrants? The evidence shows that it was sold at auction and bought by the inhabitants of Cedar City; that the bulk of it was appropriated by the men who murdered the parents of those little orphan children. I arraign Brigham Young as an accessory of the massacre, because considering the power he had over his people, no man, bishop, or any other subordinate officer, would have dared to take such an important step, or engage in such heinous scheme, if he hadn't the direct or implied sanction of the head of the church. The evidence shows that the leaders in that massacre were leaders in the Mormon church at Cedar City. I not only arraign Brigham Young as accessory before the fact of the massacre, but also as having violated his oath of office in failing to do what both his official duty and the common dictates of humanity required of him, which was to prevent the little children who were saved from being robbed; to have the property of the emigrants collected and sold and the proceeds appropriated to the nurture and education of those children. In place of doing that, this man with almost omnipotent power over his people, when the news was carried to him that the fathers, mothers and friends of those children had been butchered like dogs by Latter-day Saints and savage Indians combined, ordered the property to be delivered to John D. Lee, one of the chief perpetrators of the massacre.

"'Gentlemen of the jury, in concluding, I again say, as I said before, I do not know whether any members of the Mormon church are on this jury, or even one man who has been bound by the shackles and subjected to the influence which led Klingensmith, Joel White, William Young, and each and all of the others engaged in that massacre, to march out to the Mountain Meadows and ruthlessly bathe their hands in the blood of offenseless men, women and children. If any one of this jury is a member of the Mormon church, I don't expect any verdict. In short, if any mem-  
[p. 136]
ber of this jury has upon him the endowment garments received in that iniquitous grease-vat, the endowment house, where he took an oath of obedience and laid down his individuality, no evidence can be introduced in a case like this one that would induce such a man, as long as he is under that pernicuous influence, to find a verdict of guilty, and I do not expect it'."

The evidence at the first trial of Lee as conclusively showed his guilt as the second one did. Mr. Bishop in his preface to Lee's confession, stated, respecting these trials:

"Mormonism prevented conviction at the first trial, and at the second, Mormonism caused conviction—Brigham and his worshipers deserted Lee and marked him as a victim that should suffer to save the church from censure on account of the crimes it had ordered."

I have not the least doubt that to appease the universal adverse sentiment shown by the general expressions of disgust and indignation by the newspapers of the country caused by the exposures made at the first trial, Brigham Young entered into an arrangement with District Attorney Howard, that a Mormon jury should be impaneled to convict Lee; that the affidavits of Brigham Young and Smith, and their letters should be offered in evidence by Howard, and that he should exonerate the authorities of the Mormon church of complicity in the massacre. Mr. Howard, when he offered these affidavits and letters, said, "These papers have been submitted to the attorneys for the defense, and they consent to their introduction. I now file them and place them in evidence." Mr. Bishop, one of the attorneys of Lee, replied as follows:

"May it please your honor: While denying that these documents are legal evidence, we wish to see what length the prosecution will go in this court against the defendant by law or without law. Our opinion as attorneys is opposed to the evidence, but our client insists that it be admitted. Let the evidence go in, and with it all besides that the authorities of the church at Salt Lake City have unearthed for the perusal of Brother Howard. We now know we are fighting the indictment, and also the secret forces and power of the Mormon church."

Mr. Howard knew that the prisoner was entitled, under the provisions of the constitution, to a trial by an impartial jury, and to be confronted by the witnesses against him; that he had a right to cross-examine the witnesses of the  
[p. 137]
prosecution, and that said ex parte affidavits and letters were incompetent, and had no possible bearing in the case; that their only effect was to place on record a denial of any complicity of either Brigham or Smith in the commission of the massacre. No doubt they were given to Howard, and offered by him in evidence in pursuance of a previous arrangement with Young and Smith, or with some one representing them.

Daniel H. Wells, one of the witnesses whose memory was so bad in the Reynolds case, went to Beaver City, about two hundred and fifty miles from Salt Lake City, to testify in the case; and the only testimony given by him was that "In 1857 John D. Lee was Farmer to the Indians, was popular with them, and had previously held the office of major in the militia." These facts were of no importance to the prosecution whatever, and could have been easily proved by hundreds of persons living in the vicinity of Beaver City where the trial was held.

The jury which convicted Lee was composed exclusively of Mormons, all the Gentiles who qualified on their voir dire having been peremptorily challenged by Howard. This was not a natural thing for any district attorney to do, but his object for so doing was evidently to have Lee convicted by a Mormon jury. Howard, in his closing speech to the jury, said that he had unanswerable evidence that the authorities of the Mormon church did not know of the butchery till after it was committed, and that then Lee had knowingly misrepresented the facts to President Young, seeking to keep him in ignorance of the truth.

When I learned from the newspapers that all the Gentiles had been challenged off the jury, and that Daniel H. Wells was present at the trial, I stated then that John D. Lee was doomed; and while there was no shadow of doubt of his guilt he was entitled to a trial by a jury which was not subject to any outside influence, and had not been packed for the purpose of securing his conviction by a Mormon jury. I do not believe that any Mormon jury at that time, or any jury before Congress changed the judicial system of the Territory, would have convicted Lee, or any one of the perpetrators of the numerous homicides which for many years had been committed with impunity in the Territory, unless its members had  
[p. 138]
been either directly or indirectly advised that it was the wish of the high priesthood that it should be done. Would the high priesthood interfere with the jury? This question is answered by the following sermons of Jedediah M. Grant, one of Brigham's counselors, reported in Vol. III, page 233, of the Journal of Discourses:

"Last Sunday the president chastised some of the apostles and bishops who were on the grand jury. Did he fully succeed in clearing away the fog which surrounded them and in removing the blindness from their eyes? No, for they could go to their rooms and again disagree, though to their credit it must be admitted that a brief explanation made them unanimous in their action. Not long ago I heard that in a certain case, the Traverse jury, were eleven to one, and what is more singular, the one was alone right in his views of the case. Seven got into the fog to suck and eat the filth of a Gentile court."

While the guilt of Lee was as conclusively proved by the evidence at his first trial as at the second trial, yet at the first the jury, composed of three Gentiles, eight Mormons and one jack-Mormon, disagreed, the Gentiles having voted for conviction, and the Mormons and jack-Mormon for acquittal.5

Elder Chas. W. Penrose, in defending the church and Brigham Young in an address delivered in a Mormon assembly hall in Salt Lake City on October 26, 1884, said:

"At the second trial (of Lee) the evidence was plain and direct as to his complicity in the massacre; he was convicted by Mormon testimony, and a verdict of guilty was brought in against him by a Mormon jury. I have a list of their names, all members of the Mormon church. Strange thing, was it not, to have a Mormon jury? It would be singular in these times. But John D. Lee was convicted by a Mormon jury, a thing said by some of the newspapers, extracts which I have read to you, to be impossible."

The impaneling of that Mormon jury and the conviction of Lee by it was, indeed, strange—amazingly strange. One day in 1867, when I was walking up Main street in Salt Lake City with John Chislet, one of the persons who crossed the

 
[p. 139]
plains with one of the celebrated hand-cart trains, but who afterwards apostatized from the church, he pointed to a carriage which was approaching at a few yards distance, and said: "That man in the carriage with Brigham Young is John D. Lee, the leader of the' Mountain Meadows massacre, and the carriage in which they are riding is one which the emigrants had owned." That was the first time I had seen Lee. The carriage was accompanied by Brigham's mounted, sacred, guard. The next time I saw Lee was at his first trial, and I recognized him as the man whom I had before seen in the carriage with Brigham Young.

Whitney's version of the massacre is most disgusting to any one conversant with the facts. He not only libels the emigrants himself, but also gives currency to slanders invented and circulated by the wretches who murdered them. In Vol. I, pages 693, 694, 695, is the following:

"Whatever had been the conduct of these companies when they encountered the Utah outposts of the East there seems to be no question that not long after their arrival in Salt Lake valley they gave abundant evidence of their hostility and vindictiveness.

"During their entire journey through the Territory they appear to have conducted themselves in the most offensive manner. They swaggered through the town declaring their intention, as soon as they should have conveyed their women and children to a place of safety, to return with military force sufficient to complete such destruction of the Mormons as the United States soldiery might leave unfinished.

"They averred that the murdered leaders of the church had received their tardy deserts, and gave the impression, if they did not positively boast, that in their company were hands which had been reddened with the Prophet's blood. Nor were their offenses confined to harrowing and insulting words. They acted like a band of marauders, preying upon the possessions of those through whose country they traveled, and committed all manner of petty indignities upon person and property. Still greater crimes were charged to them by the Indians. They were said to have not only wantonly shot some of the braves, but were known to have poisoned beef where the savages would likely get it. Several deaths attributed to this cause occurred among the Indians near Fillmore, and numbers of their animals perished through drinking water from springs poisoned by the emigrants when about breaking camp.* * * Against this company, as stated, was laid the fearful charge of injecting poison into the carcass of one of  
[p. 140]
their oxen, first having learned that the Indians would be, likely to eat the meat, and of throwing packages of poison into the springs. In other ways they contrived to render themselves obnoxious to the settlers and hateful to the natives."

The charges there made are absolutely false; but if they were even true, making them either as a justification or in mitigation of the murder of innocent women and children, or even of the murder of those guilty of the silly charges, was disgraceful in the extreme. If any such crimes had in fact been committed, the proper course to pursue would have been to punish the guilty ones by due process of law. Most of the victims of that class of homicides, which in former days in the Territory were committed with impunity, were also foully slandered.

Bancroft, in his History of Utah, on page 550, states:

"It was Saturday evening when the Arkansas families encamped at the Mountain Meadows. On the Sabbath-day they rested, and at the usual hour, one of them conducted divine services in a large tent, as had been their custom throughout their journey. At break of day on the seventh of September while the men were lighting their campfires, they were fired upon by Indians, or white men disguised as Indians, and more than twenty were killed or wounded."

Mr. Forney, as superintendent of Indian affairs, made a close investigation into the details of the massacre, and in his official report dated at Salt Lake City, 1859, Senate Document, No. 42, 36th Congress, First Session, pages 87-88, said:

"A massacre of such unparalleled magnitude on American soil must sooner or later demand thorough investigation. I have availed myself during the last twelve months of every opportunity to obtain reliable information about the said emigrant company, and the alleged causes of and circumstances which led to their treacherous sacrifice.

"Mormons have been accused of aiding the Indians in the commission of this crime. I commenced my inquiries without prejudice or selfish motive, and with a hope that, in the progress of my inquiries, facts would enable me to exculpate all white men from any participation in this tragedy, and saddle the guilt exclusive upon the Indians, but, unfortunately, every step in my inquiries satisfied me that the Indians acted only a secondary part. Conflicting statements were made to me of the behavior of this emigrant company while traveling through the Territory. I have accordingly deemed it a matter of material importance to make a strict inquiry to obtain re-  
[p. 141]
liable information on this subject; not that bad conduct on their part could in any degree palliate the enormity of the crime, or be regarded as any extenuation. My object was common justice to the surviving orphans. The result of my inquiries enables me to say that the company conducted themselves with propriety. They were camped several days at Corn creek, Fillmore valley, adjacent to one of our Indian farms.

"Persons have informed me that, whilst there encamped, they poisoned a large spring with arsenic and the meat of a dead ox with strychnine. This ox died, unquestionably, from eating a poisonous weed which grows in most of the valleys here. Persons in the southern part of the Territory told me last spring, when on a southern trip, that from fifteen to twenty Pahvant Indians (of those on Corn creek farm) died from drinking the water of the poisoned spring and eating of the poisoned meat. Other equally unreasonable stories were told me about these unfortunate people.

"That an emigrant company, as respectable as I believe this was, would carry along several pounds of arsenic and strychnine, apparently for no other purpose than to poison cattle and Indians, is too improbable to be true. I cannot learn that the Pahvants had any difficulty with these people. The massacre took place only about one hundred miles south of Corn creek, and yet not any of those Indians were present. Bad white men have magnified a natural cause to aid them in exciting the southern Indians, hoping that, by so doing, they could be relied upon to exterminate the said company and escape detection themselves."

In the early seventies, when I was in Washington trying to procure legislation on the Utah problem, I became acquainted with a member of Congress whose name I have forgotten, from the district in Arkansas from which the emigrants came. I drew a bill granting to each of the survivors of the massacre a quarter section of the public land of the United States on account of the injustice done them when small children by the governor and superintendent of Indian affairs of the Territory in permitting them to be robbed by the assassins of their parents. That member introduced the bill, but it was not passed.

I stated to him the charges which had been made against the emigrants, and it made him very indignant. He said that the charges were infamous slander, because the families and persons composing the company were honest, moral and most highly respected in the community in which they had resided.  
[p. 142]
He also stated to me in substance the following respecting the emigrants: "Two young men went from Arkansas to California in the early days of the gold excitement; that they were very successful and acquired considerable wealth; and that they either purchased or procured an option on one of the large Mexican grants in Southern California; that they returned to their native State and induced a number of their relatives and neighbors, who were in comfortable circumstances, to sell their homes and property and form a company to colonize the land mentioned; that the train made up by them was not loaded with the kind of merchandise usually transported over the plains, but with the various articles necessary for household purposes, and agricultural implements, and that a considerable number of blooded horses and cattle for breeding purposes were selected and bought. The amount invested by the emigrants in the enterprise, he stated, must have been considerably more than one hundred thousand dollars.

James H. Berry, a United States Senator from Arkansas, in a speech made by him in the Smoot case, reported in the Congressional Record of February 12, 1907, said:

"In 1857 I lived in the County of Carroll, State of Arkansas. In the spring of that year there left that county, and two adjoining counties, between a hundred and forty and a hundred and fifty—including men, women and children—emigrants for California. They consisted of the best citizens of that county. It was a large train. It excited much interest throughout the section of country from which they went. They had about 600 head of cattle, several mule teams, a number of wagons, and each head of a family had more or less money; how much I do not know. Late in the fall or the early winter the news came back that the train had been assaulted by the Indians far out west, and that every soul had perished. Later on there came the news that some, the children—how many we did not at that time know—were saved, and that they were in the hands of the Mormons in Utah. Our senators and representatives here called upon the Interior Department. An agent, a Mr. Forney, was sent there by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. He gathered those children together, sixteen of them, who had been preserved from the massacre on that fatal 13th [11th] day of September. He brought those children back to Leavenworth, and there Colonel Mitchell of our county went and met them and took them in charge. I was a boy seventeen years old on that day when they were brought to the village court house. I saw them as they were lined up on the  
[p. 143]
benches, and Col. Mitchell told the people whose children they were, at least, whose he thought they were. There were sixteen of them. One little girl, I distinctly remember had an arm broken by a gunshot wound. It had not united and the arm hung dangling by her side. I have seen much of life since that day; I have seen war along the lines of the Border States in all of its horrors; but no scene in my life was ever so impressed upon my mind as that which I saw there that day presented by those little children, their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters dead on the far-off plains of Utah, and they absolutely without means, with no human being to look to. When he (Mr. Forney) first got the children, he reported to the Secretary of the Interior, and you will find it in the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that they had been so frightened and scared by the Mormons that he could get nothing from them; that they would not talk; and that it was long before he could gain their confidence. The eldest of them was five or six years of age, and perhaps there was one seven years of age. But when they got back to Leavenworth, and from there to Arkansas they had lost the fears that had been instilled in them by the Mormon families in which they had lived. They could not tell much, but they could tell that white men and not all Indians assisted in the massacre. They could tell it was a white man who came into their corral and induced the emigrants to give up their guns; that it was white men that drove the wagons in which they rode; that it was white men who shot the wounded men who had been placed in one of the wagons."

The children were sent back to Arkansas by Mr. Forney in 1859, so that at the time of the dreadful occurrence the eldest of them were only four or five years old.

The speech of Senator Berry, even if there was no other evidence of the fact, shows beyond question the high character of the emigrants, and that Whitney's statements respecting them are false.

The high character of the emigrants is also stated in the following quotation from the "Rocky Mountain Saints," by Stenhouse:

"In addition to the ordinary transportation wagons of emigrants, they had several riding carriages, which betokened the social class of life in which some of the emigrants had moved before setting out on the adventure of western colonization. * *

* In that company there were men, women, and children of every age, from the venerable patriarch to the baby in arms. It was a bevy of families related to each other by the ties of consanguinity and marriage, with here and there in the train a neighbor who desired to share with them the chances of fortune in the proposed new homes on the golden shores of the Pacific. One of their  
[p. 144]
number had been a Methodist preacher, and probably most of the adults were members of that denomination. They were moral in language and conduct, and united regularly in morning and evening prayers. On Sundays they did not travel, but observed it as a day of sacred rest for man and beast. At the appointed hour of service, this brother-preacher assembled his fellow travelers in a large tent which served as a meeting house within their wagon circled camp, for the usual religious exercises, and there, on the low, boundless prairies, or in higher altitudes at the base of snow-capped mountains, he addressed them as fervently, and with as much soul-inspiring faith, as if his auditory had been seated comfortably within the old church walls at home; and they, too, sang their hymns of praise with grateful, feeling souls, and with hearts impressed with the realization that man was but a speck in the presence of that grand and limitless nature that surrounded them, and of which they were but a microscopic part. Those who passed the company en route, or traveled with them a part of the way, were favorably impressed with their society, and spoke of them in the kindest terms as an exceedingly fine company of emigrants, such as was seldom seen on the plains. * * * A gentleman, a friend of the author, traveled with the Arkansas company from Fort Bridger to Salt Lake City, and speaks of them in the highest terms; he never traveled with more pleasant companions."

Mrs. Stenhouse, in her work, "Tell It All," said:

"My old friend, Eli B. Kelsey, traveled with them (the emigrants) from Fort Bridger to Salt Lake City, and he spoke of them in the highest terms * * * that they traveled along in the most orderly fashion, without hurry or confusion. On Sunday they rested, and one of their number, who had been a Methodist preacher, conducted divine service."

None of the witnesses in the Lee trials testified that the emigrants had poisoned the springs or dead animals, except in the first trial, when Elisha Hoops, who was placed upon the stand by the defendant, testified that in September, 1857, he accompanied Geo. A. Smith, Jesse N. Smith and ex-Bishop Farnsworth as far north as Fillmore; that they camped at Corn creek, and found the Arkansas emigrants encamped there about one hundred and fifty yards distant; that an ox lay dead between the two camps, and just as witnesses' party was about to start he saw a little German doctor who belonged to the emigrant company, draw a two-edged dagger with silver guard, such as gentlemen carry, and make three thrusts into the ox; that he produced a small, half-ounce vial, filled with a light colored liquid,  
[p. 145]
which he poured into the knife holes. On cross-examination by me, he stated that the Smiths and Bishop Farnsworth were in the wagon when the ox was tampered with, but didn't know if they saw it; did not call their attention to it, and no mention was made of the occurrence; that ten or fifteen minutes after the German had "pizened" the ox, some Indians came up and dickered with him for it. They finally gave him buckskins, and then began skinning the ox. He supposed the Indians wanted the hide to cut up into soles for moccasins, but didn't know how long they were flaying the animal as his party was driving away at the time.

The story told by Hoops was a very improbable one. He had seen the little German doctor at work upon the ox just as his party was about to start. Ten or fifteen minutes subsequently a dicker was made with some Indians for the "infected" carcass, which the Indians must have known that the emigrants would soon leave. On his further cross-examination, his efforts to explain his statement were so ridiculous that he became a laughing-stock in the courtroom. He further stated that the emigrants also put small bags of "pizen" in the spring at Corn creek. The volume of water issuing from that spring was so great that it would have required more than an ordinary amount of poison to produce any deadly effect. Hoops showed himself on the witness stand, not only to be a false witness, but a fool as well.

In Vol. I, page 782, of Whitney's history, is the following:

"Though there was a plenitude of rumors as to the persons who knew the internal history of the massacre, a degree of difficulty was encountered in determining who were actually in possession of that knowledge. This may have been partly owing to the obligation of secrecy placed upon all who were at the Meadows on the fatal day; but the greatest impediment in the way of obtaining the requisite information was the action of the officers themselves in shaping their course, as Judge Cradlebaugh had formerly done for a crusade against the Mormon church and its leaders. They thereby forced members of that organization to stand aloof and refrain from extending the aid which otherwise would have been willingly given. It was vain to say to them that only guilty persons would be pursued. They knew better. The memory of the conspiracy of the McKean clique against the church leaders which had been overthrown by the United States Supreme Court was yet fresh in their minds. McKean was still in office; a prosecution of the case by Baskin was prospective, while Boreman, judge in the second judicial district, with U. S. Attorney Cary and U. S. Marshal Maxwell were ardent followers of the chief justice in his anti-Mormon mission."

 
[p. 146]

The quiescence of the Mormon masses regarding the massacre is a most remarkably anomaly; and to have occurred on such an occasion in an American community is shocking and unmistakably discloses the viciousness of the organization of which the Mormon masses, at the time of the massacre, were members. Their quiescence, however, is not as reprehensible as the inaction of the high church officials and Mormon territorial officers, whose duty it was to move' promptly in the matter, and as they could have easily done if they so desired, procure the arrest and conviction of the fiendish communicants of their church, who, under a flag of truce, treacherously disarmed and foully murdered the innocent and confiding emigrants. Whitney further states:

"The first reports were that the Indians, several hundred in number, had attacked and slain some of the emigrants, and that men were needed to guard the remnant and bury the dead. It was upon this call to Colonel Haight that John M. Higbee, a major in one of the battalions of militia, on Thursday the 8th, set out with a body of men and wagons for the Meadows. His force was not numerous, and the men were not all supplied with arms. Some were teamsters and others took along picks and spades. They reached their destination early Wednesday morning, only to find that there had been no such bloodshed as had been reported, and that the emigrants were making good their defense. But they found an angry host of Indians bent on bloodshed, and outnumbering ten to one of their own forces. An attempt by the militia to assist the emigrants would have transferred to themselves the Indian attack. During that day and the next, awaiting further orders, they lay in camp, near to but out of sight of the entrenched emigrants, who were on the other side of a small hill. Thursday brought slight reinforcements, but by this time more Indians had arrived upon the scene. The whites who were from Santa Clara county believed as did Higbee's men, that they were summoned there on a mission of mercy to bury the dead and protect the survivors, but the fury of the Indians was uncontrollable."

In the light of Lee's confession, and the unrefuted evidence at both trials of Lee, which not only corroborated the material facts contained in that confession, but also conclusively showed that the massacre was ordered and planned by Mormon church officials who were also officers of the militia, and was treacherously and inhumanely executed by the militia and an Indian auxiliary force under the leadership of John D. Lee. Whitney's version of the massacre is "as dishonest as it is despicable," and again verifies the assertion of Brigham Young, heretofore referred to, that "we have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world."

 
[p. 147]

It is not reasonable that the subordinate church authorities at Cedar City would have taken steps to murder the emigrants had they not been instructed to do so by an order of their superior officers. Of course such an order was not, and could not be shown, except by circumstantial or oral evidence. This could have been furnished only by the church officer at Cedar City to whom it was (in my opinion) communicated by George A. Smith on his southern trip, made for that purpose; but to have so testified he would have violated his oath-bound endowment covenants by disclosing the fact, and thereby subjected himself to the fearful penalty he would incur for violating that oath.

There was no direct evidence in the trials of Lee, nor is it stated in Lee's confession, that any order was given either by Brigham or Smith to massacre the emigrants. Isaac C. Haight, of Cedar City, was the president of the Parowan stake of Zion, and as such was the chief or presiding officer of the local church government in the Mormon settlements in the vicinity of the Mountain Meadows. It was shown by the evidence in said trials that he was the first and chief instigator of the massacre, and soon after the visit of George A. Smith began to move in the matter and was an active participant until the massacre was accomplished. He afterward permitted much of the property to be sold at auction in Cedar City, where he resided, and the grain which was received in payment for most of it to be put in the church tithing house granaries. The subordinate church officers who participated in the massacre were John M. Higbee, first counselor to Haight, and William H. Dame and Philip Klingensmith, who were bishops. Lee was not a church officer, but being government Indian farmer, he was the only person who could procure the assistance of the Indians, and was selected to perform that service. That both Lee and the other Mormon laymen acted under the orders of Haight, and which were sanctioned by his superior church officials clearly appears from the facts and circumstances disclosed. It is not a reasonable hypothesis that they voluntarily assembled to commit such a horrible crime without being commanded to do so by some person or persons whose commands they were obligated to obey. I have before shown the nature of the obligations by which members of the Mormon church bind themselves, on their oaths, to obey the priesthood in both temporal and spiritual affairs.  
[p. 148]
When Haight and his subordinate church officers determined to destroy the emigrants, to accomplish it the services of a sufficient number of their co-religionists was necessary. Therefore the order under which the latter assembled and acted was an obvious and essential one, and was stated by Lee, in his confession, as follows:

"Those who were connected with the massacre, and took part in the transaction, were moved by a religious duty. All were acting under the orders of and by command of their church leaders. The immediate order for killing the emigrants came from those in authority at Cedar City. I and those with me acted by virtue of positive orders from Brother Haight and his associates. Before starting on my mission to the Mountain Meadows, I was told by Brother Haight that his orders to me were the result of full consultation with Bishop Dame, and all in authority:"

This statement was corroborated in the trials of Lee. It is not probable that Haight, who was the first one to move in the matters at Cedar City, and so soon after the visit of Geo. A. Smith, acted without the sanction of his superior church officers at Salt Lake City. After Smith made his journey to Cedar City, the church authorities in the various settlements through which he passed and preached, began to slander the emigrants and forbid the members of the church furnishing any of them with necessary supplies. While there is no direct evidence that Smith ordered the massacre, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that an order for the massacre of the emigrants, was delivered by Smith at the time he visted Cedar City, to President Haight. Unless Haight revealed the fact, which it is improbable he would do except to his subordinate church officers on their pledge of secrecy, it could not be shown. It is not therefore a matter of surprise that no direct evidence that such an order was given, was elicted at the trials of Lee. The omissions and commissions of Brigham Young hereinbefore stated conclusively show that he was accessory to the massacre of the offenseless emigrants at the Mountain Meadows. There were many more than sixteen children in the emigrant train, and only those who were old enough to coherently state the facts of the massacre if they had been permitted to live, were killed. Many of those not slaughtered were too young to know even their own names. It appears from Senator Berry's speech, before  
[p. 149]
quoted, the parentage of the unfortunate children who were saved was not known, but merely "supposed." By a most revolting massacre and heartless robbery, planned and executed under the leadership of high officials of an organization claimed to be the "Church of Jesus Christ," those innocent children were left "absolutely without means, with no human being to look to." "If there isn't a Hell, there ought to be."

Whitney, in his history, Vol. I, page 707, states that "the orphans, seventeen in number, ranging in age from three months to seven years, were taken to Cedar City and distributed among the families in the vicinity."