History of Salt Lake City, Part 137

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company
Number of Pages: 1194

USA > Utah > Salt Lake County > Salt Lake > History of Salt Lake City > Part 137

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

108

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

ordinace. In his youthful ernestness he delighted to hear the instructions of Joseph and Hyrum, and was especially inspired with the Prophet's forecast of the future. When the Prophet delivered his famous speech to the Nauvoo Legion, in full dress as their Lieut .- General, these feelings were in- tense ; but beyond the power of his description is the memory still retained in Angus Cannon's mind of the awful night of the martyrdom-June 27th, 1844.

In 1844 his father married Mary Edwards, a widow from North Wales. He went to St. Louis and died during that fall. His daughter Elizabeth is the issue of that marriage. The same fall Angus was baptized at Nauvoo by L. O. Littlefield, and was confirmed on the river bank.

Charles Lambert married Mary Alice Cannon, and became administrator of Mr. Cannon's es- tate and guardian of the children.

In the fall of '46, after the battle of Nauvoo the family were driven with the Saints across the river, on the banks of which they laid for a while, exhausted and suffering from hunger, which was relieved by the miracle of a flock of quails flying into their camps and even into their tents. The famishing exiles caught the birds and thus preserved themselves from starvation.

On h's way to Winter Quarters Angus worked for supplies. At Winter Quarters they built a house. The In lians killed their cattle in the winter, and Angus, in company with Charles Lam- bert, went to Missouri to get an outfit. He started West in 1848, but his outfit went through the ice on the Missouri River and he had to return to Missouri, which hindered his journey till the Spring of 1849, when he walked from Missouri to Salt Lake Valley, driving stock and carrying a gun for hunting. He reached this city in October, 1849, the day after his brother George Q. started on his mission for California and the Sandwich Islands.

The next summer Angus farmed and hauled wood, and in November he went in George A. Smith's company that settled Iron County. They got there January, 1851. Angus herded the stock and made the first adobies. In May he returned to Salt Lake City and continued farming and can- yon work till the fall of '52, when he went into the Deseret News office in the printing business.

At the April conference of 1852, he was ordained a seventy in the Thirtieth Quorum. In the fall of 1854, he went with Apostle Taylor on a mission to New York, to assist in the publication of the Mormon. His mother's brother, Captain Joseph Quayle, gave him money, and his mother's sister gave him a home in Brooklyn.

He was next sent to Hartford, Connecticut, to preach, which he did in various parts of that State. He returned to New York in May, and was next sent to labor in the Philadelphia confer- ence under Jeter Clinton. During the summer he baptized ten persons. He next went to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, where he baptized twenty-one persons within one month. There he was joined by Geo. J Taylor, and others were baptized. In the spring of 1856, he succeeded Clin- ton in the presidency of the Philadelphia conference, which included New Jersey, Delaware and Eastern Maryland. In the spring of 1857, W. I Appleby was appointed to preside over the mission and Angus was appointed his first counselor and to superintend the emigration on this side of the Atlantic. The same fall the elders were released to come home in consequence of the "Buchanan war." Angus left Philadelphia in March, 1858, and started for the West, but he was taken down with lung fever and stayed at Crescent City a month. He had also previously the lung fever at Philadelphia.

In the beginning of May, 1858, he with one hundred elders started west and had an eventful journey ; they arrived on the 21st of June. The Saints were on their "move south." Angus joined his brother George Q. at Fillmore. The brothers had not seen each other for eleven years. Ile returned to Salt Lake City and engaged in farming, teaming and printing as his health permitted.

In the fall of 1860, he started a company to manufacture potteryware, under the firm name of Cinnon, Eardley & Brothers. In the fall of 1861, he was called on the "cotton mission." He lo- cated on the Rio Virgin and was associated on a committee to locate the City of St. George with Erastus Snow and Jacob Gates. A charter was granted during the winter, and Angus M. Cannon was elected the first mayor of the city. He held the office two terms. He was also prosecuting attorney for Washington County, which office he filled for four years. He was afterwards elected by the legislature, prosecuting officer for the second Judicial District, for two years. In 1865, in the militia, he was elected major of the Iron Brigade, cavalry ; and was afterwards elected lieutenant- colonel of the same regiment and commissioned by the governor.

In the fall of 1868 Angus was called to the management of the business department of the Des- eret News, his brother, George Q., being the editor. He remained in that position till 1874, during which time he filled a six months' mission to the Eastern States, and traveled about 34,000 miles

109

ANGUS M CANNON.

· inside of two years and a half. His health being feeble he resigned, August, 1874, and traveled ex- tensively through the Territory to recruit his health, and engaging in business pursuits. In 1874 he was ordained a High Priest and set apart as a member of the High Council of the Salt Lake Stake uf Zion, and at the April conference of 1876, he was called to preside over the Stake. In August of the same year he was elected Recorder of Salt Lake County for a term of four years, and re-elected in August, 1880. When the Deseret News Company was incorporated he was elected a director and vice-president of the company, and has been several times re-elected.

In 1883 he went east and ordered machinery for the new paper mill ; and in these miscellaneous notes it may be named that in the spring of 1874 he was set apart as counselor to Bishop Thomas Taylor. He was with the expedition that went south to locate Call's Fort, on the Colorado, and with the company that recovered the body of Dr. Whitmore, killed by the Indians.

The life sketch of Angus M. Cannon, thus far, culminates with, to the Mormon people, the distinguishing historieal circumstance of his going to the Penitentiary to maintain the integrity of the marriage relations of his church. We cannot follow the details of his ease and trial (the subject of which is embodied in the sketch of his attorney, F. S. Richards), but will close with his marked conduct and address to the Court on the day when sentence was passed upon him, Saturday, May 9th, 1885.

The Court said: "Mr. Cannon, will you stand up, please ?"

Mr Cannon stood up.

The Court. - " As you are aware, the jurors who tried the charge against you for unlawful co- habitation found you guilty, and the motion for a new hearing having been entered and overruled, it now becomes the duty of the Court to pronounce the judgment of the law. Have you anything further that you desire to say before sentence is pronounced ? If so you can say it."

Mr. Cannon .- "Nothing."

The Court .- "As you are aware, the law gives the Court quite a wide discretion in the punish- ment imposed for this offense ; in fact, the laws of the United States do that-give the court a dis- eretion. The punishment here may be a fine not exceeding $300, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both ; so that the Court has a discretion between a nominal fine, or a fine of $300, and imprisonment for six months. That being the case I would be very glad if you ean suggest any- thing that would enable the Court to exercise its discretion in the light of all the facts which the Court has the right to take into consideration. One of these facts is-the Court is of the opinion, and it has so held on former occasions, particularly as the offense is a continuing one, like unlawful cohabitation-that the Court may inquire of the defendant as to what his purposes are in respect to obeying the law in the future and in his respect to his advice to others. I do not ask this, I wish you to understand, for the purpose of humiliation, or for the purpose of extorting from you, under pressure of circumstances, any statement whatever. You are at perfect liberty to answer or not an- swer, just as you please. Of course, if a man charged with a crime, convicted of a crime by a jury, says that he intends to obey the law in the future, and that he intends to use his influence upon the side of the law, it ought to be taken in his favor, ought to be so considered by the court, as I think. And if any man satisfies me that he is in good faith in making this statement I should be very much disinclined to impose upon him imprisonment in the penitentiary. Information has come to my ears that some persons regard this as rather an imposition by the Court, intended by the Court to humiliate and oppress the defendant. I do not so regard it. The best men that have ever lived in this country have been proud to declare that they believe in the laws of their country. They glory in thousands of brave men that have died in its defense, to vindicate its laws. Now, if you desire to make any statement on that point you are at liberty to do so. I do not wish you to understand that I desire to oppress you or humiliate you in the least ; but I would love to know if there are any paliating circumstances which the Court has not a knowledge of, I would love to know them before pronouneing sentence."

Mr. Cannon -" If your Honor please : It has been the rule of my life, since I have been mar- ried especially, to make my aets the evidence of my good faith. It has been the rule of my life, in the presence of my children, to invite their scrutiny of my conduct as evidence of my love. It has been the rule of my life, in the country that has become my adopted home, to which I have sworn allegiance, to make my conduct the evidence of my loyalty. I have scanned closely the evidence produced before the jury that returned a verdict of 'guilty.' I listened to Clara C. Cannon's state- ment, in answer to the prosecution, that she had been my wife up to the passage of the Edmunds act. As to my conduct towards her since that time she was debarred from answering by the objec- tions of the prosecution. I was anxious to have the Court made familiar with my conduct. The only

110

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

evidence that I heard that would imply that I acknowledged one wife, or more than one wife, was from a son -my son, George M. Cannon-who stated that he had heard me say that I married my wives when there was no law against it. I was debarred from introducing any evidence to prove my good faith as evinced by my conduct. From the time that the Edmunds act became a statute --- from that time to this -I have no knowledge that there was a scintilla of evidence given before the jury to justify a verdict of ' guilty.' It was said by your honor that if there was any evidence to show that I had held out these two women as wives, then, if that evidence were reliable, they must return a verdict according. I reposed in calmness and serenity at that thought. For me to stand here and state what I will do in the future, conscious of having violated no provision of that statute; to give assurance that I will do a thing that may be beyond my control an hour hence ; to tell what I may do with my allegiance to my country, I cannot. With all my soul I love the country, and love its institutions, and have sworn allegiance to it. When I did so I had no idea that they would pass a statute making my faith and my religion a crime. But having made that allegiance I can only say I have used the utmost of my power to honor my God, my family, my country and its laws. I have loved my children and I was gratified in hearing your honor say that the law had made my children equal heirs. From this I infer that had I died intestate my children would have been equal heirs before the law. This law was passed by men who had no sympathy with my children, that is, no such sympathy as a father is capable of exercising for his offspring. In eating with my children day by day, in showing an impartiality in meeting with them around the board where their mother was wont to wait upon them I was not conscious of crime. If the law-makers of my country pro- vide that my children shall be treated impartially in the settlement of my estate, certainly I, their father, ought not to be held a criminal for having eaten with them and shown that impartiality and that care which every true father always will feel for his offspring. My record is before my country; the conscientiousness of my heart is visible to the God of heaven, who created me ; and the rectitude that has marked my life and conduct with this people bears me up to receive such a sentence as your honor shall feel to impose upon me. I was pleased also when your honor stated to the jury and to the members of the court that my conduct towards these respective wives, and the expressions I might have used towards them, were those that should enter into consideration when sentence was being passed. As I have been debarred from giving evidence of my intention to maintain the laws of my country, and to honor the institutions that are provided under the Constitution, which I have loved and honored, my heart was made glad in the anticipation that your Honor would probably consider these things. Hence, I now submit and humbly bow to the decrees of this court, trusting to be able to bear up under any sentence that you may inflict in such a manner that shall give evi- dence to my children that I have not, at least, lost my manhood if I have been convicted." [Loud applause, against which the Judge protested, remarking, "This is a court house ; you must keep quiet here !"]

The Court .- "I infer from your remarks that you have nothing further to say ?"

Mr. Cannon .- "Nothing."

The Court .- "You decline, I see, to make any promise as to the future, which you would not be able to keep an hour hence ?"

Mr. Cannon,-"I have never been in the habit of making my children promises ; I have de- clined making them promises lest I should fail."

The Court .- " When a man has been convicted of an offense like this, which is, to some extent a continuing one, and when you decline to state whether you will obey the law in the future or not, whether you will advise others to obey it or not, the court, of course, cannot presume that that is your intention at this time. And further, if it is your intention not to obey the law as it was expounded and not to use your influence, so far as you may have it, on the side of the law, of course, the Court must take this circumstance, this fact, into consideration. The object of this law, the purpose of the discretion the Court has, is to prevent this crime of unlawful cohabitation. That is the purpose of the law, and the court is here to use the discretion which the law has given it, as the judgment of the Court will be, most likely to carry out the purpose of the law, that is to say, to prevent the recur- rence of the crime of which the jury has convicted you, by the example of punishment. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that the Court in this case-considering the extent of this punishment as compared with that for polygamy-would not be justified in giving you anything less than the extent imposed by the law-a fine of three hundred dollars and imprisonment in the peni- tentiary for six months."

A. MILTON MUSSER.

Immediately after Mr. Cannon had been sentenced, the case of Mr. Musser was then called and Mr. Brown moved for a new trial, which motion was opposed by Mr. Varian.

The court overruled the motion, and then, addressing the defendant said : " Mr. Musser will you stand up, please ?"

Mr. Musser stood up.

The Court .- "You are aware of the fact that the jury found you guilty of the crime of unlawful cohabitation. It now becomes the duty of the court to pronounce the sentence of the law. Have you anything to say ?"

Mr. Musser .- "I have a communication, may it please the court, which Mr. Stayner, one of my counsel, will read, if the court will grant permission."

The Court .- "He may read it."

Mr. Stayner then read the following letter :

"SALT LAKE CITY, MAY 9, 1885.

" To His Honor, Chief Justice Charles .S. Zane, Third Judicial District, Utah Territory.

"DEAR SIR .- In view of my having done in the past, according to my best understanding, all that I thought was required of me as a law-abiding citizen by conveying to my wives and to their heirs and assigns, respectively, their separate homes and homesteads, and finding that my conduct in this and other regards has not had the warrant of your honor's endorsement, I feel that I am jus- tificd in asking the court for the personal peace and safety of myself and my dear family, to defi- nitely and specifically define what line of conduct will be the correct one for me to follow when 1 am released from the penitentiary, where I cheerfully go for the inestimable privilege I have hereto- fore enjoyed in 'holding out' my several wives before the public, without the least attempt to con- ceal the holy relations. I would also call your honor's attention to the noonday fact that my wives and children, individually and collectively, are as dear to me as your Honor's wife and children can possibly be to you, and that they have equal claims upon me, under the holy covenant 1 have made, to love, cherish, honor and tenderly care for them ; all of which I have done to the best of my abil- ity, and, as far as I know, to their entire satisfaction ; also that my obligations to each and to all of them are of the most sacred, binding, and, as they and I firmly believe, eternal character.

" I now desire to have it clearly defined what course will be the safe and proper one for me to pursue to keep my contraets honorably with them, and yet live within the law as interpreted by your honor during my trial, which rulings seem to me to be very cruel and oppressive, not to say subversive of good law and morals. Having used my very best judgment all through life respect- ing these vital matters, and it now being deemed unsound by your Honor, as witnessed by my pos- ition before the court to-day as a criminal, I most anxiously desire to obtain an expression from the Chief Justice of Utah, at this juncture of the court's proceedings in my case, respecting my definite and specific duties, as to what I am to do as a husband, father and good eitizen, after I emerge from the Bastile, where I suppose the court will send me for having openly and affectionately 'held out' and cared for my lovable wives and children, who in all the mental and physical graces and endowments, natural and acquired, are the peers of their sisters elsewhere ; for I cannot persuade myself to be- lieve that this mighty and magnanimous republic, which your honor represents in such a dignified, distinguished and obviously impartial manner, would wittingly punish its citizens who are in every other respect law abiding and upright.

" Very respectfully, your humble servant, "A. MILTON MUSSER."

The Court : "Is the communication which you have presented, Mr. Musser, through your friend, Mr. Stayner, the limit of your proposition ? (Mr. Musser bowed in affirmation). It calls, at least it is proper, for the court to make a few remarks upon it. You ask what is necessary for you to do in order to comply with the law. A general statement would be, that it is necessary for you to live with but one wife, and treat but one of these ladies as your wife. The law does not forbid you from supporting your other wives-I think you state you have three-it does not forbid you from supporting these wives, and if they need your assistance and support, it would be your duty to assist

112

HISTORY OF SALT LAKE CITY.

them if you have the means; but the law won't allow you to live with them ostensibly as your wives. The law permits you, of course, to bring up your children as best you can It is a duty you owe to them.

" The law does not prevent you from using your means and your counsel to fit your children, by any proper training, for the duties of life, and in fact, whether they are legitimate or not-I will say in fact, I suppose no one will deny it-it is a duty you owe to society to make good citizens of them by properly training them so far as you can; the law don't forbid that; but it will not permit you to live with but one of these women as your wife, and to live with more than one woman as a wife is a crime. Whatever your religious belief may be about it, the law of the United States has de- fined it as a crime. From the tenor of your communication I infer that you don't consider it a crime for a man to have more than one wife-to cohabit with them as such-and I infer that you claim that as a matter of religion. I wish here to correct an error -- that is, in the judgment of the court-into which you have tallen right there. The church has its sphere and the State has its. It is truc the Constitution of the United States says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exereise thereof." But the Supreme Court of the United States have given an interpreation to that provision ; Congress has given an interpreation of it in this aet ; the chief executive of the nation has given an interpretation of it by approving the law, and it is this : That so long as your religion consists of belief and worship it is protected by the Constitution; but when acts-overt acts-occur, the State has a right to ecntrol, and as there seems to be so much misunderstanding on this point, I wish to impress upon you the distinction. The Supreme Court of the United States (98th United States Reports, page 164), in the ease of Reynolds vs. United States, referring to the views of the various statesmen who lived contemporaneous with the adoption of this first amendment. quote from Thomas Jefferson, who, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, took occasion to say :

"'Believing with you, that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ' make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his naural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.'

" This was the statement of Thomas Jefferson, who was as strong an advocate of religious liberty, perhaps, as any satesman that has ever lived in this country. Then the Supreme Court, through the present Chief Justice, says :

" Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

"And further along in the opinion the chief justice, speaking for the court, defines the matter with equal clearness.

"Laws are made, says he, ' for the government of actions,' and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices.

"The Supreme Court regard polygamy as a practice, and unlawful cohabitation as a practice, and therefore it is within the powers of the legislative department to forbid it. This must necessarily be so ; because if any man or any church has a right to lay down a rule of conduet for its followers contrary to the law of the land, then the church is made superior to the state ; the state if left to control such conduct only as the church don't choose to call religion; and if one church may lay down the line of conduct for its followers contrary to the will of the state, another may, and there would be a great conflict among those different believers, different religions, as to certain classes of conduct without any common arbitrator. Hence it is necessary, in the nature of things, that the state should have the power to control the actions of its citizens so far as it is necessary for the pro- tection of life, liberty and property, and the protection of society. I make these remarks because I infer from your communication that you do not think that the state had the power to regulate this institution of marriage, or to prohibit polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Salt Lake City, Part 137

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock Publication date: 1886 Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company Number of Pages: 1194

Author: Tullidge, Edward Wheelock
Publication date: 1886
Publisher: Salt Lake City, Star printing company
Number of Pages: 1194