This "understanding" and the "compact" were discussed on the floor of the House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following language:
"I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the authority for the proposition that the United States government can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it, exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act, although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that exists between the States and the general government by reason of this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding' which is based on—what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing between the States and the general government. I knew that the theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865. More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle—the blue and the grey, brethren all—rendered up their lives that that infamous proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract existing between a State and the United States."
Discussing the question of "compact" further, Mr. Littlefield said:
"Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between the State and the general government. They do not stand in the position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was to become a State was fully performed when she became a State. The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists.
"What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any writer to stand upon."
With Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between Utah and the United States having been violated, it has been fulfilled. Utah has made no effort to repeal the Constitutional provision forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages. On the contrary, her State Legislature has even re-enacted the part of the old Congressional and Territorial law that had been ignored by the Constitutional convention, defining and punishing polygamous living—that is, "unlawful cohabitation."
OF THE MORMON CHURCH BEING A MONARCHY.
Passing from the matter of the compact which the speech to which I am replying falsely charges over and over again that we have violated, I come to the accusation and false charges made against the Mormon Church.
Whoever constructed this speech made the central idea of it, the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch" in the State of Utah. The "monarchy" is the Mormon Church; the "monarch" is the President of that Church. In order that you may know I am not mistaken, I shall read to you a quotation from the speech on this point:
"Under these several men (the Church Presidents) the social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. * * * I want you to know that this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality of men immediately established and has maintained for the mass of its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its rulers to regal authority and splendor * * * the chief among them has the dignity of a monarch. * * * In all this social system each Apostle has his great part. He is inseparable from it. He wields now, as does the minister at court, such part of power as the monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order that he may become the ruler."
There is much more to the same effect, but this is enough to show you that the existence of both a "monarchy" and a "monarch" are charged as existing in the Church organization and in its president.
I wish to call your attention to the fact that this is mere assumption. There is no "monarchy" and there is no "monarch" in the Mormon Church. It is a fundamental, constitutional, and I might say institutional principle in the Church that all things in the Church shall be done by common consent of the Church; (Doc. & Cov. sec. xxvi) and so long as that remains the great underlying principle of the government—and largely even of administrative functions—of the Church of Jesus Christ, I ask you where the principle of monarchy can come in? Furthermore it is expressly provided that no officer of the Church can occupy a place in any of the general or local quorums of the Church, only as he is sustained and accepted by the members of the several divisions of the Church named. (Doc. & Cov. xx: 65.) Moreover, elections, which give the opportunity to get rid of undesirable officers, are more frequent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than in any other system of ecclesiastical government known to men. Will you tell me how a monarchy can exist in the face of these fundamental truths? I would like to see some explanation of that.
Again, the President of the Church is no "monarch." Yet let me read to you how he is described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech:
"Under these several men [successive Presidents of the Church] the social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as it every reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His home consists of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. In addition to this he has an official residence of historic character near to the office which he occupies as President. When he travels he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really servitors. When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler among his subjects."
Can any of you recognize President Joseph F. Smith in that description? I cannot boast of an extremely intimate acquaintance with President Smith's domestic life, or his financial status; but it has been my good fortune to know him personally some 30 years. I know something of the severe economy and frugality which he practices. I know his homes are but cottages, without the grandeur here given them. I know that his family lives in economy and frugality, and that every tree, evergreen, shrub, or flowering plant, or plat of grass about any one of his cottage homes was planted by his own hands or the labor of his sons and wives. I do know that. And though he does now occupy an historic building, owned, not by Joseph F. Smith, but by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is more for the convenience of the people and those who have business with him that he dwells there than because of any "regal" or extravagant tastes that he himself possesses, and in that "official residence" he lives the simplest of lives. I know at least seven of his sons who have arrived at manhood's estate, and I know that they live by daily toil,