The Church Historian's Press The Church Historian's Press

4.15

“Mormon” Women’s Protest, 1886 (Excerpt)

“Mormon” Women’s Protest. An Appeal for Freedom, Justice and Equal Rights. The Ladies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Protest against the Tyranny and Indecency of Federal Officials in Utah, and against Their Own Disfranchisement without Cause. Full Account of Proceedings at the Great Mass Meeting, Held in the Theatre, Salt Lake City Utah, Saturday, March 6, 1886 ([Salt Lake City]: Deseret News Co., n.d. [1886]), pp. [ii], 8‒10, 17‒19, 21‒23 (excerpt).

See images of the original document at babel.hathitrust.org.


On March 2, 1886, the Deseret Evening News announced that a mass meeting would be held four days later in Salt Lake City “for the purpose of making known the grievances of the women of Utah, and protesting against the indignities that have been heaped upon them in the present anti-‘Mormon’ crusade.”1

These Latter-day Saint women met to protest the Edmunds Act, a federal statute signed into law in March 1882 that disenfranchised participants in plural marriage, created a new category of crime for “unlawful cohabitation” to make prosecutions for polygamy easier, and provided for fines and imprisonment for participants in plural marriage.2 Increasingly rigorous federal enforcement of the Edmunds Act caused intense tumult in territorial Utah. As one legal historian explains, “By the mid-1880s the territorial courts were awash in indictments, arraignments, trials, and appeals. The gradually accelerating pace of legal process defined the course of events in Utah, affecting all aspects of life.”3 The women’s protest was also directed at the Edmunds-Tucker Bill then pending in Congress, which proposed to take even more drastic measures to end plural marriage than had the Edmunds Act. When this bill became law in 1887, it placed most of the church’s property and financial holdings into receivership and disenfranchised all Utah women regardless of church membership or any participation in plural marriage.

On the afternoon of Saturday, March 6, 1886, an estimated two thousand individuals, including some men, assembled for the protest meeting in the Salt Lake Theatre.4 The meeting consisted primarily of addresses by Latter-day Saint women and the formal adoption of nine resolutions.5 Among other things, the resolutions objected to the proposed repeal of Utah women’s right to vote under the Edmunds-Tucker Bill, the prosecution of antipolygamy laws in the district courts, and the compelling of wives to testify against their husbands. The ninth resolution called upon the women of the United States to “come to our help in resisting these encroachments upon our liberties and these outrages upon our peaceful homes and family relations.” A month earlier, the Woman’s Exponent reprinted a January 1886 article from the Woman’s Journal, the newspaper of the American Woman Suffrage Association, that similarly urged its readers to oppose a bill then moving its way through Congress which proposed to deprive “the women of Utah of that suffrage which is theirs by long-settled law and practice.”6

At the end of the protest meeting, a committee formed to compose a memorial for Congress. The memorial included the resolutions adopted in the meeting, cited examples of officers infringing on citizens’ rights in their zeal to enforce the Edmunds Act, and ended with an appeal: “We plead for suspension of all measures calculated to deprive us of our political rights and privileges, and to harass, annoy and bring our people into bondage and distress, until a commission, duly and specially authorized to make full inquiry into the affairs of this Territory, have investigated and reported.”7

Emmeline B. Wells and Ellen B. Ferguson personally delivered the memorial in Washington DC to Congress and President Grover Cleveland. Wells noted, “I walked into the White House . . . where we sat about an hour and a quarter waiting our turn to speak to the President of the United States. Shortly after twelve o’clock we presented to him our credentials and the Memorial of the women of Utah Territory, and had an opportunity of stating to him some facts and incidents relating to the abuses and outrages perpetrated in the name of law.”8 Senator Henry W. Blair, a Republican from New Hampshire, presented the memorial before the Senate on April 6, 1886, asking that it be printed in the Congressional Record.9

The Utah women also published a ninety-one-page pamphlet, from which excerpts are included below, that printed all of the speeches prepared for the grievance meeting, including some that were not delivered because of lack of time. “The aim of this pamphlet,” the compilers wrote, was “to preserve in convenient form, for present use and future reference, the record of the proceedings of that memorable day when the ‘Mormon’ women, in mass meeting assembled, found it necessary for their own protection and the honor of their sex throughout the world, to memorialize Congress and the President of the United States for relief from insult and oppression at the hands of Federal officials.”10


“MORMON”

WOMEN’S PROTEST.

AN APPEAL

FOR

FREEDOM, JUSTICE AND EQUAL RIGHTS.

The Ladies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints protest against the tyranny and indecency of Federal Officials in Utah, and against their own disfranchisement without cause.

Full Account of Proceedings at the Great Mass Meeting, held in the Theatre,

SALT LAKE CITY UTAH,

Saturday, March 6, 1886. [p. [ii]] . . .11

president m. isabella horne12

Made the opening address and stated the object of the meeting. She expressed the regrets of Mrs. Eliza R. Snow Smith, president of the women’s organizations of the Latter-day Saints, who was absent from the city and unable to be present, but said that she had received a letter from that lady stating that she was heart and soul in the movement of the hour.13 The speaker continued:

It is with peculiar feelings that I stand before you this afternoon. To think that in this boasted land of liberty there is any need for a meeting of this kind to protest against insult and injury from those who have sworn to administer the law with justice and equity. It has been said by some, “what good will it do to hold a mass meeting?”14 If it does no other good, it will be a matter of history, to be handed down to our posterity, that their mothers rose up in the dignity of their womanhood to protest against insults and indignities heaped upon them. It will also be written in the archives above, where “angels are silent notes taking,”15 and will have to be met by those persons who are waging this bitter crusade against us. And why should we, a few people in these valleys of the mountains, be subject to these insults aside from the rest of the commonwealth? Why should we have legislative enactments against us as a people because we obey the laws of God and the first commandment given, “to multiply and replenish the earth.”16 Congress might with more propriety legislate against the priests and nuns of the Catholic church who forbid to marry, for if their practices were universal where would the strength and perpetuity of our nation be?

We as a people do not believe in taking the law in our own hands; it is against the teachings of our Prophet and Seer and our present authorities. The Lord has marked out a course of action for this people. It is written in the book of [p. 8] Doctrine and Covenants that when our enemies persecute and oppress us, we should petition the judges; if they will not hear us, we should petition the governor and if he will not hear us, we should petition the president.17 To my own personal knowledge this counsel was obeyed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who went himself with some of his brethren to the governor of Illinois, Governor Carlin, and the president of the United States, Martin VanBuren, asking that our wrongs of Missouri be redressed. The answer was “Mr. Smith your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.”18 Is it any wonder that the Prophet was led to exclaim, “the glory of American freedom is on the wane.”19 We have been persecuted and driven from our homes a number of times, and submitted without retaliation, for the Lord has said, “vengeance is mine and I will repay.”20

Must we, women of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, still submit to insults and injury without raising our voices against it? And why are we thus persecuted? Because we choose to unite ourselves to honorable, God-fearing men, who, in virtue honor, integrity and faithfulness to the marriage vow, stand head and shoulders above Federal officials who ply our brethren with questions regarding their future conduct which is without precedent in the annals of court proceedings.21 We all feel the insults offered our sisters when brought into court and forced to answer indecent questions by threats of fine and imprisonment.22 And we do most solemnly protest against further legislative enactments to disfranchise a whole community, who have committed no crime, only for religious belief.

It has been said by the chief executive of the nation, “I wish you could be like us.”23 And what is that? They marry one wife and degrade as many women as they choose. God forbid that we should descend to their level! We believe in the elevation of woman, and live on a higher plane. Our husbands marry wives and honor them and their children by [p. 9] giving them their names and acknowledging them in society. We are not surprised that we are persecuted for obeying the laws of God, for our Savior has said, “it must needs be that offenses come, but woe be to them by whom they come.”24

At the close of the president’s address,25 a motion was made by Dr. Romania B. Pratt that a committee on resolutions be appointed.

The motion having prevailed, the following named ladies were appointed as that committee: Romania B. Pratt, Fanny Thatcher and Edna Smith, of Salt Lake City; Jennie Tanner, of Provo, and H. [Harriet] C. Brown, of Ogden. The committee retired to prepare the resolutions. . . . [p. 10] . . .

Here the committee on resolutions re-entered and reported the following, which was read by the secretary, and unanimously and enthusiastically adopted:

preamble and resolutions of the women of utah in mass meeting assembled.

Whereas, The rights and liberties of women are placed in jeopardy by the present cruel and inhuman proceedings in the Utah courts, and in the contemplated measure in Congress to deprive the women voters in Utah of the elective franchise;26 and,

Whereas, Womanhood is outraged by the compulsion used in the courts of Utah to force mothers on pain of imprisonment to disclose their personal condition and that of their friends in relation to anticipated maternity, and to give information as to the fathers of their children; and,

Whereas, These violations of decency have now reached the length of compelling legal wives to testify against their husbands without their consent, in violation both of written statutes and the provisions of the common law, therefore, be it [p. 17]

Resolved, By the women of Utah in mass meeting assembled, that the suffrage originally conferred upon us as a political privilege, has become a vested right by possession and usage for fifteen years, and that we protest against being deprived of that right without process of law, and for no other reason than that we do not vote to suit our political opponents.27

Resolved, That we emphatically deny the charge that we vote otherwise than according to our own free choice, and point to the fact that the ballot is absolutely secret in Utah as proof that we are protected in voting for whom and what we choose with perfect liberty.

Resolved, That as no wife of a polygamist, legal or plural, is permitted to vote under the laws of the United States, to deprive non-polygamous women of the suffrage is high-handed oppression for which no valid excuse can be offered.

Resolved, That the questions concerning their personal condition, the relationship they bear to men marked down as victims to special law, and the paternity of their born and unborn children, which have been put to women before grand juries and in open courts in Utah, are an insult to pure womanhood, an outrage upon the sensitive feelings of our sex and a disgrace to officers and judges who have propounded and enforced them.28

Resolved, That we honor those noble women who, standing upon their rights and refusing to reply to improper and insulting questions, such as no true man nor any court with any regard for propriety would compel them to answer, have gone to prison and suffered punishment without crime,29 rather than betray the most sacred confidence and yield to the brutal mandates of a little brief authority.

Resolved, That the action of the District Attorney and the Chief Justice of Utah, in compelling a lawful wife to testify for the prosecution in a criminal case involving the liberty of her husband and in face of her own earnest protest, is [p. 18] a violation of laws which those officials have sworn to uphold, is contrary to precedent and usage for many centuries, and is an invasion of family rights and of that union between husband and wife which both law and religion have held sacred from time immemorial.30

Resolved, That we express our profound appreciation of the moral courage exhibited by Senators [Wilkinson] Call, [John] Morgan, [Henry] Teller, [Joseph] Brown and others,31 and also by Mrs. Belva H. [Ann Bennett] Lockwood,32 who, in the face of almost overwhelming prejudice, have defended the constitutional rights of the people of Utah.

Resolved, That we extend our heartfelt thanks to the ladies of the Woman Suffrage Association assembled in Boston, and unite in praying that God may speed the day when both men and women shall shake from their shoulders the yoke of tyranny.33

Resolved, That we call upon the wives and mothers of the United States to come to our help in resisting these encroachments upon our liberties and these outrages upon our peaceful homes and family relations, and that a committee be appointed at this meeting to memorialize the President and Congress of the United States in relation to our wrongs, and to take all necessary measures to present our views and feelings to the country.34 . . . [p. 19] . . .

Miss Nellie Colebrook then read, in a very spirited manner, the following poem, written for the occasion by Emily Hill Woodmansee:

GIVE THE “MORMONS” THEIR RIGHTS.

In behalf of the “Mormons” the following address is respectfully submitted to every lover of freedom and fair play in the United States of America; also to the members of the House of Representatives, and of the Senate, and to all honest hearted people elsewhere.

Must the “Mormons” be mute, when compassion is weeping?

And sorrows unnumbered are right at our door?

Should “the daughter of Zion”35 be quietly sleeping—

As if the dark day of her bondage were o’er?

Our wrongs and our cares—must we welcome as sweet?

Or walk into snares that are laid for our feet? [p. 21]

Like a whirlwind approaching, vile laws now are pending,

If passed, all the pillars of freedom will shake;

“Our cause is most just,” yet it claims such defending;

“The women of Mormondom” needs must awake.

Thus, we humbly petition Columbia’s nation,

To frown on oppression, and harsh legislation.

Our foes trouble little, or nothing to mention,

For “poor Mormon women,” or “down-trodden wives.”

Were polygamy only the bone of contention,

The “Mormons” might vote all the rest of their lives.

Our foes may not count us smart, sensible folks;

But we see through their purpose—contempt it provokes.

We prize not their pity, whose aim is to plunder

A people who strictly to peace are inclined;

If the “Mormons” lose patience need any one wonder,

Who considers our wrongs, by the crafty designed.

Yet they’ll harvest disgrace where they hope for renown,

Who for power or place thrust the innocent down.

We appeal to the people in freedom’s dominions—

To the fair-minded millions who love what is right;

Must the “Mormons” be robbed for their faith and opinions—

Crush’d and ground, ’twixt the millstones of greed and of spite?

Is it needful or lawful to wrest freedom from us

For what we believe, or for what we can’t promise?

Our honor is priceless, our rights are all precious,

Our affections are sacred, our households are dear;

Our husbands are heroes, in spite of the specious

And wonderful (?) rulings of judges so queer,

Who shift their decisions, around and around,

Till for “Mormons” a verdict of “guilty” is found.

“The world loves its own,”36 but it “hates us,” and fights us,

Our rights are withheld, and our friends are in prison;

Yet, we never are comfortless, always, the righteous

“Through much tribulation”37 to glory have risen.

Let the spirit of fairness, quench bigotry’s fire;

Then, the “Mormons” will reap all the praise they desire. [p. 22]

Foretold was our fate, of a truth “men revile us,”38

And the meanest of motives, our foes thus disguise;

Their black-hearted falsehoods will fail to defile us,

But the masses are misled by plausible lies.

Alas! that such libels so stript of the truth;

Are read more than Bibles, by thousands forsooth.39

If the vex’d “Mormon problem,” must have a solution,

’Tis time something nobler than hate should be tried;

Sure, the “Mormons” have suffer’d enough persecution,

Yet sustained by their faith, they have lived, they have thrived.

The more they are slander’d, and hunted and driven—

The more they are prosper’d, and favor’d of heaven.

Praise! Surely is due to the stout hearted exiles—

Who rescu’d from barrenness Utah’s broad vales;

Who built all the bridges, and leveled the ridges

And braved all the hardships such settling entails.

God bless our endeavor; He rescues us ever,

Though ev’ry things fails, shall we doubt Him? No never.

Our homage we yield to the Lord, our defender,

For manifold mercies, what less can we do?

“To Caesar” the “Mormons” submissively render

Whatsoever is just, whatsoever is due.40

But to those who would crush us or fleece us by law,

We can’t for the life of us kneel down in awe.

To statesmen we turn, yea, we ask for protection,

In the land that with blood, was from tyranny freed;

Must the “Mormons” to-day be the only exception

To the hosts who can honor their conscience indeed?

Oh ye, whose brave fathers scaled freedom’s proud heights

Concede to the “Mormons” their God-given rights. . . . [p. 23] . . .

Footnotes

  1. [1]“Mass Meeting,” Deseret Evening News, Mar. 2, 1886, [3]; “The Ladies’ Mass Meeting,” Deseret News [weekly], Mar. 10, 1886, 119.

  2. [2]An Act . . . in Reference to Bigamy, and For Other Purposes [Mar. 22, 1882], Statutes of the United States of America, Passed at the First Session of the Forty-Seventh Congress, 1881–’82 (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1882), 47th Cong., 1st Sess., chap. 47, pp. 30‒32.

  3. [3]Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America, Studies in Legal History (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 155.

  4. [4]For reports of the meeting, see “The Ladies’ Mass Meeting,” Woman’s Exponent, Mar. 1, 1886, 14:148–149; and “The Ladies’ Mass Meeting,” Woman’s Exponent, Mar. 15, 1886, 14:157–160.

  5. [5]“Mormon” Women’s Protest, iii.

  6. [6]Hamilton Willcox, “The Utah Women,” Woman’s Exponent, Feb. 15, 1886, 14:138.

  7. [7]“Mormon” Women’s Protest, 47‒48, 80–91.

  8. [8]“‘The Rotunda’—Kirtland—The ‘Memorial,’” Woman’s Exponent, Apr. 15, 1886, 14:169, italics in original.

  9. [9]See Emmeline B. Wells, “From a Lady Delegate,” Deseret Evening News, Apr. 21, 1886; and Congressional Record: Containing the Proceedings and Debates of the Forty-Ninth Congress, First Session; Also, Special Session of the Senate (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1886), vol. 17, pp. 3137–3138.

  10. [10]“Mormon” Women’s Protest, iv.

  11. [11]text: The ellipsis points in this excerpt have been supplied by the editors of this volume to indicate omissions from the original document.

  12. [12]Horne was a member of the committee that called the protest meeting and was elected chair of the meeting. (“Mormon” Women’s Protest, 5, 6.)

  13. [13]Snow was quite ill during March and April 1886, as indicated in Weber Stake Primary Association Minutes and Records, 1879–1968, CHL, Minutes, Mar. 20, 1886; and Third Ward, Liberty Stake, Primary Association Minutes and Records, 1879–1966, CHL, Minutes, Apr. 30, 1886.

  14. [14]Latter-day Saint women had held several such protest meetings, beginning as early as 1870. (See, for example, Documents 3.12 and 3.13.)

  15. [15]Hymn 151, “Do What Is Right,” Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs. For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 14th ed. (Salt Lake City: George Q. Cannon, 1871), 165.

  16. [16]Genesis 1:28.

  17. [17]Doctrine and Covenants 101:85‒89.

  18. [18]On November 29, 1839, Joseph Smith and Elias Higbee met with Van Buren seeking redress for Mormon losses in Missouri. According to Smith’s history, Van Buren said, “What can I do? I can do nothing for you!— if I do any thing I shall come in contact with the whole state of Missouri.” The history adds, “Before we left him, he promised to reconsider what he had said, and observed that he felt to sympathise with us on account of our sufferings.” (Joseph Smith et al., History, 1838–1856, vols. A-1–F-1 [original], A-2–E-2 [fair copy], CHL, vol. C-1, 988.)

  19. [19]“No honest man can doubt for a moment, but the glory of American liberty, is on the wane; and, that calamity and confusion will sooner or later, destroy the peace of the people.” (Joseph Smith, General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States [Nauvoo, IL: John Taylor, 1844], 8.)

  20. [20]Romans 12:19.

  21. [21]Following conviction, many Latter-day Saint men continued to state their support for plural marriage. For instance, a federal judge asked Henry Gale, after his conviction for unlawful cohabitation, “whether the defendant had any promises to make as to his future behavior.” Gale, an aged resident of Beaver, responded “he had obeyed the word of the Lord, that he therefore, had no promises to make.” (“Doings of Deputies,” Salt Lake Herald, Dec. 19, 1885, 8; see also, for example, Ken Driggs, “The Prosecutions Begin: Defining Cohabitation in 1885,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 21, no. 1 [Spring 1988]: 117.)

  22. [22]For instance, Eliza Shafer and other witnesses were asked if Shafer ever occupied the same bed as her alleged husband, J. W. Snell. Lucy Devereux was asked before a grand jury, “After you went to live at Newsom’s house did you not occupy the same bed with him?” (“Mormon” Women’s Protest, 85; “The Snell Case,” Deseret News [weekly], Aug. 19, 1885, 489; “The Case of Lucy Devereux,” Deseret News [weekly], June 17, 1885, 344.)

  23. [23]In May 1885 a delegation of Latter-day Saint leaders presented a list of grievances to President Grover Cleveland. In the discussion, Cleveland reportedly said, “I wish you out there could be like the rest of us,” a statement that Mormons interpreted as hostile to their practice of plural marriage. (“Report,” Deseret News [weekly], June 3, 1885, 316–317; see also Erastus Snow, May 31, 1885, in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [Liverpool: Various publishers, 1855–1886], 26:220–221; and Eliza R. Snow, “That Loathsome Ulcer—What Is It?” Deseret News [weekly], July 28, 1886, 435.)

  24. [24]See Luke 17:1.

  25. [25]As compared to the preceding account of Horne’s address, the report published earlier in the Woman’s Exponent is briefer and has some portions that are differently worded. Horne presumably revised and expanded the address for publication in pamphlet form. The Exponent account reads:

    “Prest. M. I. Horne expressed the regrets of Mrs. Eliza R. Snow Smith at not being able to be present, but stated that she was heart and soul in the movement.

    “Prest. Horne said it was with feelings of sorrow that she contemplated the occasion which called forth the necessity for a protest against the wrongs heaped upon ‘Mormon’ men and women, because of their obedience to the law of God. The nation could with more consistency legislate against the Catholics for their belief in celibacy than against the ‘Mormons’ for obeying the first great commandment, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’ It was a duty of the Saints to appeal to rulers, and if disregarded God would avenge them. President Van Buren had told the Prophet Joseph his cause was just, but the nation could do nothing for his people, and the nation had been vexed ever since. Men were now sent to jail because they would not promise to renounce their wives and children, and the women of the Latter-day Saints could not longer submit in peace to this, and to the insults offered their sisters in the courts. They could not longer go on without protesting against continued adverse legislation. They could not come down to the level of those who degraded women, but would continue in the service of God, and trust in Him.” (“The Ladies’ Mass Meeting,” Woman’s Exponent, Mar. 1, 1886, 14:148.)

  26. [26]Women in territorial Utah received the vote on February 12, 1870. In 1882 the Edmunds Act disenfranchised women that were plural wives. The 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act stripped the right to vote from all the women of Utah. (Documents 3.14 and 3.17; An Act to Amend Section Fifty-Three Hundred and Fifty-Two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in Reference to Bigamy, and for Other Purposes [Mar. 22, 1882], The Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from December, 1881, to March, 1883, vol. 22 [Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1883], 47th Cong., 1st Sess., ch. 47, pp. 30–32; An Act to Amend an Act Entitled “An Act . . . in Reference to Bigamy, and For Other Purposes” . . . [Mar. 3, 1887], Statutes of the United States of America, Passed at the First Session of the Forty-Ninth Congress, 1885–1886 [Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1886], 49th Cong., 2nd Sess., chap. 397, p. 639, sec. 20.)

  27. [27]On February 19, 1886, Vermont senator George F. Edmunds, a prominent sponsor of antipolygamy legislation, wrote to woman suffragists in New York, “If you and your associates understood the state of things in Utah, I am sure you would support instead of opposing the provision to relieve the women of Utah from the degredation of voting as their Mormon masters require.” The Woman Suffrage Party responded that this accusation was incorrect: “Under the effect of political liberty many Mormon women are now beginning to speak out against polygamy.” (“Senator Edmunds Scored by a Woman,” Deseret News [semi-weekly], Mar. 8, 1886, [2].)

  28. [28]The actions of federal judges in Utah went too far even for some opponents of polygamy. An editorial in the Sacramento Daily Record-Union asked, “Why was it necessary to plunge Belle Harris into prison and refuse her bail, in order to ascertain who is the father of her several children? The woman has exhibited courage in a bad cause, that nevertheless excites respect coupled with pity. We fear our Gentile friends in Utah lack discretion in their zeal.” (“The Belle Harris Case,” Sacramento Daily Record-Union, May 22, 1883, [2].)

  29. [29]For instance, Nellie White was imprisoned from May 22 to July 9, 1884, for failure to answer questions put to her by the grand jury. (See “Committed for Contempt,” Deseret News [weekly], May 28, 1884, 297; “Nellie White,” and “Nellie White Is Free,” Deseret News [weekly], July 16, 1884, 401, 408; “Mormon” Women’s Protest, 85; see also “Just Compare the Two Cases,” Deseret News [weekly], May 23, 1883, 280.)

  30. [30]“The basis for the rule was that the husband and wife were a unity in the eyes of the law, and since the litigant spouse was incompetent to testify because of interest, the other spouse was also considered incompetent.” However, for Latter-day Saints to invoke the common law protection would have required establishing the marital relationship, the very thing that the prosecution wanted. (“The Husband-Wife Evidentiary Privilege in Criminal Proceedings,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 52, no. 1 [May‒June 1961]: 74n2.)

  31. [31]Wilkinson Call, Democrat from Florida; John Tyler Morgan, Democrat from Alabama; Henry Moore Teller, Republican from Colorado; and Joseph Emerson Brown, Democrat from Georgia. These senators had opposed the pending Edmunds-Tucker Bill. (See remarks of Call, Brown, and Morgan in Congressional Record: Containing the Proceedings and Debates of the Forty-Eighth Congress, First Session [Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1884], vol. 15, pp. 5182–5183, 5190–5191, 5240, 5281‒5290; see also “The Attack on Senator Teller,” and “Tellers’ Defamers,” Deseret News [weekly], Jan. 27, 1886, 23, 25.)

  32. [32]Lockwood, the first female attorney to argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, was a committed suffragist and had reservations about the constitutionality of the Edmunds Act of 1882. Lockwood argued that the Edmunds Act was “unjust and inquisitorial” and “a blow at woman suffrage and only a fool or knave would deny it.” (See Lola Van Wagenen, “Sister-Wives and Suffragists: Polygamy and the Politics of Woman Suffrage, 1870–1896,” Dissertations in Latter-day Saint History [Provo, UT: Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History; BYU Studies, 2003], 120–121.)

  33. [33]Probably a reference to the American Woman Suffrage Association, headquartered in Boston. The organization’s official newspaper, the Woman’s Journal, consistently opposed disenfranchisement of Utah women. (See Van Wagenen, “Sister-Wives and Suffragists,” 58; see also, for example, Hamilton Willcox, “The Utah Women,” Woman’s Exponent, Feb. 15, 1886, 14:138; Hamilton Willcox, “Amend the Utah Bill,” Woman’s Journal, Feb. 20, 1886, 60; and Editorial, Woman’s Journal, Mar. 27, 1886, 97.)

  34. [34]The memorial to be sent to the president and Congress included several accounts of Mormon women’s experiences in the district courts of Utah. (“Mormon” Women’s Protest, 84–88.)

  35. [35]See Isaiah 62:11; and Zechariah 9:9.

  36. [36]John 15:19.

  37. [37]Acts 14:22.

  38. [38]Matthew 5:11.

  39. [39]Both purported exposés of Mormon polygamy and novels about it found large audiences. For instance, J. H. Beadle’s Life in Utah; or, The Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism. Being an Exposé of the Secret Rites and Ceremonies of the Latter-day Saints, with a Full and Authentic History of Polygamy and the Mormon Sect from Its Origin to the Present Time (Philadelphia: National, 1870) went through multiple printings, including in German and Russian. An announcement in a publisher’s dummy for Beadle’s next book claimed that Life in Utah had “reached the enormous sale of over 70,000 copies, and was everywhere warmly endorsed by the press and public.” Another popular work was Cornelia Paddock’s The Fate of Madame la Tour: A Tale of Great Salt Lake (New York: Fords, Howard, and Hulbert, 1881). This book was still being printed as late as 1900, with one printing done in Danish. (J. H. Beadle, The Undeveloped West; or, Five Years in the Territories [Philadelphia: National, ca. 1873], publisher’s dummy, copy at CHL; Chad J. Flake and Larry W. Draper, eds., A Mormon Bibliography, 1830–1930: Books, Pamphlets, Periodicals, and Broadsides Relating to the First Century of Mormonism, 2 vols., 2nd ed. [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004], 1:49–50; 2:47.)

  40. [40]See Matthew 22:17‒21.