K6asons wnu th6 r60DI6 ot ._Utah snouta

b6 H.6DUbliGans. ·

BY JOSEPH F. SMITH.

ISSUED BY THE

REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE

GHAS. ORANE, CHAIRMAN.

TtllS P.AIVIP�l.tET IS PlUNTEO 0� UTHtl l\f.AOE PHPEn.

SALT LAKE _CITY, UTAH OCTOBER, 1.892

i <·

mormondocs.org

ANOTHEI< PLAIN TALK.

Reasons why the People of Utah Should be Republicans.

BY JOSEPI-f F. SMITH.

IN an article which appeared in the columns o[ the Salt Lake I:ferald, of October 11, 1892, C. W. Penrose writes, urider the head of ''Plain Talk," ''Reasons why the People of Utah should be Democrats." ' .

To let his article go unnoticed n1ight convey the idea that some of us who are Republicans have no reasons to offer

why we sl]ould be Republicans. As· I see no reason, · in discussing these questions, why

anything should be said that is not friendly in its cha1·acter, I feel the greater liberty in setting forth to the public some of my reasons why the people of Utah should be Republicans. I may not be able to enumerate all the reasons tb(ire are why we should be Republicans, but perhaps I may cite a sufficient number, to show that we are justified in accepting the doctrines of the Republican party as those which are best adapted for the government of this country.

I may say, to begin with, however, that it is a matter of surprise to me that my friend, C. W. Penrose, should take so narrow a yiew as to express w onder why Latter-day Saints

should be Republicans. · He starts out with the statement that because the people of

Utah revere the Constitution of the United States, and many of them regard it as divinely inspired, they should be

Democrats. For my life, I cannot discover why this should be a

reason for being a Democrat. For this beli.e£ is not peculiar to Democrats-the most of the Republicans of my acquaintance, myself included, believe the Constitution to have been divinely

inspired. If I, therefore1 were to use the ad captandum argu­ment of C. W. Penrose, I would say that because Republicans believe the Constitution of the United States to be divinely in-. spired, the people of Utah -should be Republicans.

mormondocs.org

He says, again, the Constitution is a Democratic in­strument. It was, he says, prepared by Democrats, and is an

expression throughout of pure Democratic doctrine. Were my friend a professional politician, I should call such

a statement as the above mere clap-trap; for in this he gives us a new version of history. None would be more surprised at

it than the framers of the Constitution themselves. Undoubtedly, the framers of the' Constitution were Demo­

crats. but they were also Republicans. To· say that they were Democ.rnts in. the partisan sense in which Mr. Penrose uses the title, is not true. If his view were correct, one would almost

wonder how the nation ever carne to be called a Republic: A Democracy of the United States of America would surely have been a more fitting titl:e for ·a government whose charter, having been framed by Democrats, was itself Democratic, ancl was throughout an expression of p�ire Democra:tic doctrine. There would then have been no talk of Republican institutions,

Republican simplicity, Republican principles or form of government-talk which to those who hold the view expressed in "Plain Talk" as. to the exclusive Democratic character of the nation's institutions and its founders, must sound sin­gularly inappropriate. It is an historical fact that Thorp.as J ef£erson, who is held up today as the great apostle of Demo­cracy; ran for President of the United States as a Republic, and did not seem to be a:c;hamed of the title. The fact that at the time the Constitution was framed all true America�1s were both :Republicans and Democrats-that is, opponents of th.e monarchial system-is a sufficient answer to the point my

friend tries to make. They were Republican-Democrats or

Democratic-Republicans, or plain Democrats, or plain Repub­licans, just as the term suited them. But they were not partisans

in the sense h1 which he uses the term. To apply to the word " Democrat " or "Democratic"· any other significance at tha.t time would have bee� deemed a trifling with language. I would not accuse him of doing this; but does it not have this appearance?

Friend Penrose is correct in saying that a Democ.racy is a

government by the people, from whom all power comes. But what, pray, is a republic? Whence come the government and the power of government in a republic? Have the people less

mormondocs.org

4

to do with it because someone in straining to make a point rejects the title of republic and adopts the title of Democracy"? Surely, this is sophistry of the thinnest kind!

One would almost imagine, in reading "Plain Talk," that the Democrats had always maintained the Constitution of the United States and all its ·provisions inviolate, and that some­one else had been trying to destroy that immortal instrument, and upon this ground the writer· appeals to the people of

Utah in an endeavor to convi�1ce them that they ought to be Democrats.

That my readers may obtain a fair .understanding of this and see what foundation there is for the statem ent that they

all ought to be Democrats, I desire to exaniine as briefly as posf:iiblc the history of the Democratic party and its aCtions towards Utah since this Territory was settled. I might, to do full justice to the subject, go back to the days of Mi$souri and Illinois; but this would introduce an element in to the dis­cussion perhaps not altogether profitable. I therefore shall omit all referen.ce to events which occurred before the ·pioneers came to Utah, though in doing so I leave out a great many points that would add force to my argument.

After the settlement of Utah Territory the first adminis­tratiop that came into power was the Whig administration of

Taylor�Fillmore. General Taylor died, and Millard Fillmore, the Vice-President, became President of the United States. Let it be said to the credit of that Whig administration that the people of Utah then had tangible home rule granted to them. Fillmore's administration consulted the wishes of the people of the Territory as to who was the man of all others among them whom they would prefer to be their Governor. Brigham Young was their choice, and without hesitation Presi­dent Fillmore appointed that distinguished man as the Governor of the Territory. Such acts as �hese speak louder

than words and empty professions. Has the Democratic party with all its pretended love for home rule, ever done as much for us as that?

I am aware that home rule is a favorite theme with Dem­ocratic politicians; and this recalls that monumental absurdity,

the so-called home rule bill now pending in Congress. The

mormondocs.org

measure is clumsy, ridiculous, and un-American. The whole realm of legislation offers no parallel to it. It is a monster, and

is an insult and a sham, in that it proposes, not to loosen the chains with which the people are now held, but to guild them

with coin wrung from their hard-earned substance. Am I not justified in judging of Democratic pretentious and ideas

o.E home rule by that.

measure? When framed, its existence

was kept secret. A knot of Democrats conceived the thing in qarkness in Salt Lake City, and its birth took place when in­troduced into the House of Representatives. Its parents had reason to be ashan1ed of it; for the best plea urged in its favQr

was that it would furnish the citizens· of Utah a time of probation during which, forsooth, they could exhibit their f1tuess for self-government! This was the estimate· placed upon the people. of Utah by this Democratic measure! And yet it is thought to be such a S1Jperior specimen of Democratic home rule that it has become a Democratic idol before which

all Utah has been' expected to fall down and worship. Mr. Penrose calls Senator Teller's bill for the admission of Utah a sham; but it did propose admission, did it not? What did

this Democratic home rule measure propose'? It proposed a form of State government without the power thereof. It in­creased the burdens of the people without giving them any

voice in the affairs of the nation, and h.trnished places for a

lot of hungry politicians at the expense of the people, In. 1856 the Republican party came into existence.

General Fremont was the Presidential c�ndiD.ate of that party. Against him the Democrats p itted James Buchanan. J ames

. Buchanan was elected. Then the Democratic party showed how much love it had for the people of Utah. The first act was to remove Governor Young.. That· was its way of show­

ing its regard for home rule.. Next,' it sent an army wi th the avowed intention of crushing the people of Utah. Perhaps the meanest, most oppressive and heartless officials, with the excep­

tion of the Governor, that Utah was ever cursed with came at that time as the repr.esentatives of Den1ocracy. The Re­publican party had assailed polygamy in its platform; but the Democratic party undertook to show the country that it could go far beyond the Republican proposition-it would attack the whole structurq and destroy the whole Mormon institution.

mormondocs.org

This was the illustration which the people of Utah then had

of Democratic love for the Constitution and their rights as a people.

Mr. Penrose· makes the statement that the Democratic party has been the friend of Utah in all its efforts to secure its rights. '\iVill the truth of history bear this out?

It must be always borne in mind, in cmisidering the action of the two gtca t political parties towards U tab, that the im­pression was general and well grounded up to a recent elate that the Mormon people were hopelessly. Democratic. The Republican party, therefore, viewed them as their political opponents. They had nothing to expect from them politic­ally, and they treated them accordingly. On the contrary, the Democratic party had every reason to believe that ·the Mormon people were Democratic. Now, in contnistihg the treatment extended by the two parties to Utah this fact should not he

·lost sight of. The Democrats had every r,eason for treating us as political friends, the Republican for treating us as politi­

cal opponents. I feel free in saying that rernem bering thi s

fact, we have been treated better in Utah by the Hepublicans than we have by the Democrats.

I assert this, and it cannot be truthfully contradicted, that the greatest sufferings and miseries which the people of Utah have endured, those which have entailed the greatest loss and sacrifice, have been experienced under Democratic administra­tions. (See Mil!. Star, Vol. 21, page 829.)

As I have already said, it was under a Whig administratiou that Utah was created a Territory. This was in 1850. Dur­ing the 42 years which have since elapsed there have been thre'e Democratic adrninistrations�those of Pierce, Buchanan and Cleveland. Of Pierce ' s p.dn1inistration it need only be said that there was no agitation of Utah's affairs and she attracted no attention. But of Buchf(nan's· administration, who can de­scribe the sufferings of the people of Utah under it? After the lapse of 34 years it chills my blood to think of them. Another exod.us of the people of a.ll our northern settlements in 'the inClement spring o£.1858-homes ab�ndoned-another launching forth to search new homes-men, women and child­ren fleeing from an army whose threats of outrage· and violence were borne to their ears by every breeze from the east. The

mormondocs.org

7

recollection of the acts of mobs was then too recent to permit

any feeling of· indifference to prevail. Those who took part in those scenes, and yet live cannot forget them. Neither

can their children who have heard the recital c;>f them. This was an exhibition, pure and simple, of Democratic rule. Shall we take that as furnishing reasons why the people of Utah

should be Democrats? I doubt if my friend Penrose himself would be so ardent in presenting his reasons in favor of Democratic rule

· if, instead of being in the kingdom of Great·

Britain and under the rule of Queen Victoria, he had shared the hardships and privations of those days.

From Buchanan to Cleveland, a period of twenty-four years, the Republican party was in power. Among other acts of legislation it enacted the law of 1862. Mr. Pelll'ose calls this act "the egg" of the confiscation bird of prey. I do not defend, much less approve of, that act. But this may be said: had the Republican party known Utah as favorably as the Democratic party had reason for knowing her that "egg'' would not have appeared. As it was, it remained only an

"egg" for "twenty-five years," and thea it was hatched under the administration of Grover Cleveland.

Mr. Cleveland is again· a �andidate for the office of Chief

Executive, and with remarkable fatuity my friend wquld have all of us

' think him the man who ought to be elected; But

what claim has Mr. Cleveland to our gratitude, or by what acts of his did he show himself the friend of the people of Utah? We are told that if the Manifesto had been issued during the Cleveland administration the people of Utah would have received very different treatment to that which his adminis­tration dealt out to them. But there is considerable room to

doubt this. While he was yet President a constitutional con­vention was called in Salt Lake City, and a state.constitution was framed for Utah which practically made the continuance of polygamy impossible in the proposed State. Here was the opportunity for the Democratic party to show its friendship for Utah. No man in public life knew better than President Cleveland the condition of affairs in this Territory, for no President ever had such copious explanations and from so many different sources given to him. Did this action of the

delegates of the people in framing this constitution have any

1 mormondocs.org

8

effect? Did it produce a cessation of prosecntion, or evoke any kinClly interest in those dark days of s�vere trial? N:ot the least. No commiseration, no relaxation of rigorous enforcement of law on the part of Mr. Cleveland and. his administration. What is such frie1idship worth? It is when

people are in trouble that true friends exhibit their sympathy and give their aid. During those days of which I speak the

,.admission of other Territories as States received Democratic endorsement ; but of Utah it was·said by aiJ. eminent bemo­crat ic leader that "It was a fly in the Democratic ointinent !" That is our case. vVe have too often been a fly in DemO­cratic ointment.

The creation of the Utah Com mission is referred to by my Democratic brother as a striking lllustration of Republican

doctrine and policy. This body was created by the law of 1882.

True the Republicans were 1n the majority in the Congress which enacted that measure. But let what I have stated not be forgotten, that the Republican party viewed the people of

Utah as their politic al opponents. This I know is no .justi­fication of bad or oppressive legislation. But what shall be said of the Demo cratic leaders who joined heart and hand in tl1at measure? If that measure w·as conceived in Republican sin, it was brou ght forth by Democratic in iquity. Two of the principal members of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate when the Edmunds law was passed were Thomas F. Bayard and A. H. Garland- par nobile jratum--Democrats of the highest and most admirable (?) type. They knew the people cif Utah viewed the Republican party as their enemy and the Democratic party as their friend. They and the entire Demo­cratic party at that time, fully believed Utah to be solidly Democratic. By taking a finn, bold stand they might have

checked, jf . not arrested ent irely, the maddened Hood of anger which was then sweeping over the land· against Utah. Bayard especially was acquainted with tht true situation of affairs here. But he and Garland, instead of protesting against what C. W. Penrose calls a "Republican monstrosity," did all in thei1� power to debauch everyone they came in contact with to support and make it law. Vvhen Democrats cite the Jaw of 1882 or 1887 as an evidence that the: people of Utah should be Democrats, they commit a blunder, an act· which in the

mormondocs.org

9

·opinion of the French eli plomatist, Talleyrand, is worse than a ·Crime. For the conduct of leading Democrats in s;onnection

with both these laws was most discreditable. It is tri.w that there were some Democrats who opposed these measures, but that is merely to say that there are some Democrats who are honorable men. They all could not forget that the people of Utah were being attacked by the other party because of the reputation they had of being Democrats. Can anyone who

knows the Republican party think for a moment that the people of Utah had been their friends and of their party, as they were supposed to be of the Democratic party, that the Republican party would not have stood solidly by them?

Whatever faults the Republican party may have, cowardice is not one of them. It stands by its friends ..

T. F. Bayard and A. H. Garland were as much to blame, in. their place, I or the creation of the U tab Commission and the enactment of the Edmunds law of 1882 as Georgct F. Edmunds was. And yet we see it brought them no discredit in their party. No sooner did Cleveland get into power than

T. F. Bayard was made Secretary of State and A. H. Garland Attorney Genenil. The Department of Justice was placed ' under the latter's control, and the people of Utah had the

·€lpportun1ty of witnessing what a Democratic administration of the government would do for them. Never in all their history were they made to feel the iron enter their souls as under the

administration of the Department of Justice. by A. H. Garland and the Chief Magistracy of Grover Cleveland. Under

.the domination of these prominent Democrats hundreds of the people of Utah had the leisure, w1thin the walls of the penitentiary, to ponder upon the insincerity and hollowness of Democratic professions.

The Democrats now try to dodge the responsibility of all this suffering by alleging that it was Republican officials who ex.ecuted the law. Such an evasion is both insincere and cowardly. Who was President of the Unit.ed States?

Grover Cleveland. Who was Attorney General ? A. I-I. Garland. Had they the power under the law to remove officials who

were not carrying out their policy?

j mormondocs.org

10

Certainly they had. If the people of Utah were being cruelly, or harshly or

improperly treated, they, of all men. ought to have arrested it. But they did not . On the contrary, some of the judges of theh own party exceeded in severity and rigor the Repub .. lican judges. The ignominy of all that occurred from.l885 to 1889 must be that of the Democratic party. That party claims everything which it thinks creditable during Cleveland's ad­ministration. Why shall it be permitted to evade and blame

Hepublicans for that which was dtscreditable during the same period? I repeat that to do so, as Democrats'in this Territory are doing , is nothing but despicable cowardice .

. Let it be rem em b'ered that the Republicans, in carrying out their policy, did not attempt to deceive the people of Utah. They announced their principles; they sought to carry

them out. But the Democrats have continually been making fine speeches. Thay have told us all the day long what great friends they were of the people of Utah; but what have they done? That is the ·vital question in this discussion. They

may have given us some "soft soap;" but when they had the power to act, and had the governm<;:nt in their hands, they have shown what they would do for Utah. The two Democratt"c administrations of Buc!tmtan attd Cleveland--the only �nes of the kind z"n 3I years-stanrl out as the blackest pages in American· Ms.tory, so jar as the treatment rif tltt people o.f Utalt is concerned. Who can truthfully dispute th is ? How any old citizen of Utah, after sur.h bitter experience of Democratic rule, can be so insensate as to seek to bring in another Democratic administration only illustrates how utterly blind men can bec0me under the influence of party feel i ng. With such a record it is astonishing that a man of experience and standing· should have the presumption and hardihood to urge such reasons why the people of Utah should be Democrats.

But I have digressed. I will now return to the late

legislation against U tah. I have shown the share of the DemocratiC party, through its leaders, had in the l"egislatio:o of 1882. Let us examine that of 1.887. Who were its authors? George F. Edmund�, Chairman of the Committee of Judiciary in the Senate, and J. Randolph Tucker, the ·leading constitu­tional lawyer of the Democratic party and Chairman of the

mormondocs.org

11

J"!ldiciary of the House. The bill of 1887 was their joint production. Tucker, the lauded Democratic exponent of the Constitution and the powers to be exercised under it, prepared his bill, and it is said he made it more severe than the bill Edmunds prepared--for he also prepared one. A fusion of the two bills was finally effected, and the law bears their joint names-Edmunds-Tucker law. Mr. Tucker was a high Demo­

cratic authority. He could discourse as plausibly about the

beauties of constitutioual government under Democratic rule, and g·ivc as many reasons why people should be Democrats as any man in the nation. But talk is cheap. We must take

the law which be�rs his name as containing his ideas of Democratic doctrine. By that la\v a:nd. its hateful provisions must Mr. Tucker and that section of the Democratic party which acted with him be judged. They cannot divest them­selves of their share in the iniquity. To charge this. measure on the Republicans alone is most unfair and disingenuous.

But there is this diHerencc between the Republican party's action in this case and the action of Mr. Tucker and his followers-the Republican party was honestly carrying out its policy and co.nvictions, while Mr. Tucker and friends were voting for a bill which their Democratic brother, Penrose, thinks· infamous.

This however is not all. Grover Cleveland was then PresiGlent of the United States. He had the right under the Constitution to veto that bill. He is in this dilemma, there­

fore: he either secretly approved of th(3 bill, or he lacked the courage to veto it. His friends can select either horn of the d ilemma they choose . I myself attribute his non-action to the same feeling that had influence with his predecessors Buchanan and Van Buren-for while he did not veto the bill, he did not approve it.

Remember, I am saying all this because by only partially telling the facts th.e writer of "Plain Talk" compels me to ·do

so. It is not my purpose to say unpleasant things about Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cleveland; but the truth of history ought to appear.

My friend accuses the Republican party of absolutism, and a tendency to monarchy.

Grave charges. Let us examin e them.

I

mormondocs.org

1 2

First, then, wherein has it shown a disposition t o abMlu­

tism ? True, when it came into power in 1 861 it found a nation almost in the agonies o f dissolution. The Democratic

President, Jam es B u chanan, l ike Van Buren before him, paralyzed by that miserable doctrine of .States I�ights, of which C. W. Penrose appears to be a disciple, stood · powerless in the presence of armed preparations for the destruction o.f the

:Republic. He dared not, no more than Van Buren in our case upwards of twenty years before, exercise the powers of his

great office and stamp out rebellion in a State or States. H e

stood trembling, a craven traitor, apparently willing that the

bonds which held the S tates together and' made us a nati on,

should be broken at will by the rebels who had been beaten at the p olls. At this crisis there was no time for lovers of country to listen to the drivel that was i ndulged in by . one and another of the Democrats concerning the powers of the government under the Constitution. Thank God, the Repub­lican party deemed the law of self-preservation sufficient to justify the striki ng down of secession and armed rebellion, even though the traitors attempted to entrench themselves beh i nd

the Constitution of the United States. It determined that, come what might, the Republic should be saved . · This grand deter­mination of the Republican party caused loyal men all over the land, both Democrats and Republicans, to rush to the

rescue of the government an0 to the preservation qf the

Union. If the Republican administration was guilty of acts Qf absolutism dur ing that trying period, it Jnust be remem· bered that the nation had to be saved, and there was no time to stop to argqe about constitutional points. Vallandigham,

a strong and leadi ng Democrat, and other copperheads in the N orth, were doing all in their power to weaken the hands of the administration. They had to be dealt w i th summarily,

and measures were adopted and put into execution which were j ustified by the exigencies of the situation. Tf Demo­crat i c doctrines as exp ounded by James Bt1chanau and other leading lights of the D emocratic party at that time c:ould have prevailed, we would at least have had two nations and perhaps several, where now the Republic of the United States

is o ne and undivided. If this be absolutism in the opinion of C. W. Penrose or his fellow-Democrats; let them make the

mormondocs.org

1 3

most of i t. Its frui ts are : a united country-a government respected at home and abroad, instead of confederacies of rival states with rival interests, border custom hou.ses and constant border wars.

The Republican party believes in S tates Ri ghts, but it does not believe in States wrongs. It believes, what every man i n U tah should believe with the experience that w e have had in the p ast, that there ought to be a power in the central govern­ment to control the affairs of this nation, �nd to protect the citizens of the United States in Missouri, in U tah, or in. Louisiana, as well as in Russ i a on the shores of the Mediter­ranean. · True, thi s power may be abused, but that does not invalidate a true principle of government. .

Second---Paternalis�1. The Republ ican party has been

guilty, no doubt, of w·hat my friend calls paternalism. I will try and illustrate its patern alism.

The XV Amendment to the Const itution enfranchises the n�gro and . bestows upon him full c ivil rights. These amend­ments to the Constitution were adop ted in a constitutional manner. They became a part of the orgnaic law of the land. But there are portions of our Union where a dispositi�n has been shown to refuse to the colored man the rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. I can sympathize with the people who l ive in States where the negro v ote prepon derates. I would not myself choose such a State as my place of resi­dence. But the colored people have rights guaranteed to them

· by the Constitution. The question is, shaH these rights he maintained, or shall these people be stripped of their rights by violence? The Republican party believes, what every good citizen should believe, that it is the duty of the govern­

ment of the United S tates to . main tain its organic law and to enforce i ts provrswns. In doing this and protecting this unfortunate race it can; perhaps, be charged w i th pater­nalism ; but it is not a charge to be ashamed of ; it is rather one of which every Repu bli can may well be proud. Such paternalism h as its orig in in respect for· law and for the rights of human beings, even though they are colored. Either repeal the amendment to the .Constitution which gives

mormondocs.org

14

to the colored man these rights, or maintain the Constitution

and protect him in tlie enjoyment of that which is bestowed upon him. This is the precise attitude that the Republi can party o ccupies. This jg all there is in the remark in " Pl ain

Talk " concerning negro rule-the Democrats do all they can to depri ve the n egro of the right to vote, and the Republicans desire the right preserved as guaranteed by the Constitution. It may be said, however, that the Democrats are perfectly willing that the negro ·shall vote where his vote is in favor of the Democratic party.

And now I came to his third accusation-a tendency in the Republican party to monarchy.

Wherein has this tendency been exhibited ?

For nearly thirty-two years, with the exception of the Clevel and admini stration of four years, the Republican p arty has had the control of the government of the Republic, and are we today any nearer becoming a monarchy than we were· in 1861 ? · Does not the very name of the H.epublican party

i ndicate that it is entirely opp osed to a monarchy ? · To show how utterly groundless is this charge I need only mention one

prominent inst ance. General Grant w as the idol of the country. He had stood at the head of the government for eight years. The people h ad confidence in him. A large number of his admirers determined that he should be the candidate of the Republican · party the third time for Presi d ent of the U nited States. Here was an opportunity to exhi b it the tend�ncy of the p arty to monarchy. But we all know how that attempt ended. The Republ ican National Convention refused to extend to him the distinction of being President

of the United States for the third time. Does this look like

a tendency to monarchy ? As to the paternalism exhibited in the doctrine of protec­

tion, and with which C. W. Penrose ftnds fault, it is a

principle with wh1ch the people of U tah onght to be familiar.

They cannot h ave forgotten the teachings of Brigham Young and the gal axy of illustrious men who were h is co-laborers in laying the foundations of this commonwealth. They con­ti nually impressed upon the' people the value . of home in­dustries, and clearly proved that it was for the true

mormondocs.org

1 5

benefit of the community to support them, - even if i n so doing they had to pay more for articles manuf�ctured at home than they would for the same articles manufactured elsewhere. They never failed to set forth the advantages which would flow to the entire community by pursuing this poli cy. These men were statesmen of a high type, and the people prospered in taking their advice. Though these wise men did not attach a political name to their policy, nevertheless it was nothing more nor less than the princi ple of protection as advocated . by the · J{epublican party. But in these days we have a number of apprentices in politics who, assuming the skin of the lion and imitati ng his voice, seek to impose · upon and m islead the people by thci.r Democratic sophistries. They would undo all that has been clone towards fostering

home industries, and array class against ·cJalls, farmers against manufacturers, and manufacturers agai1lst farmers, and produ(;e discontent and anarchy in the land . This is the direct effect of the arguments of these would-be le aders of the people.

I have shown how unworthy 9f the confidence of the people of U t ah the Democratic party has proved itself to be� how flagrantly it has failed to exhibit true friendship to them in their hours of distress and peri l ; how, whenever i t h ad the opportunity, it . has endeavored to out-Herod Herod ; and ashamed of the people of Utah a:nd their apparent devotion to it, and fearful lest our country should think the Democratic party had any connec_tion or sympathy for us, it has never hesitated whcl.1 in power to deal us deadly blows. Yet after all these exhibitions of its- perfidy, after being literally struck and spurned by that party, there are those in Utah who abjectly lower their backs to be again struck, and seem. rather proud than offended at the treatment they have received.

The principles of the Republican party, when faithfully carried out, I believe to be the best for Utah and the country at large. It has in the past qeen the open opponent of the people of U tah. But it has never, while weari ng the mask of

friendship, either struck or stabbed them. The reasons for its action towards Utah I have partially explained. vVhere people exam ine and reflect, those reasons can be understood. But the Republican party has changed its attitude towards

mormondocs.org

1 6

U tah. It seeks our friendship. I t i s a party of courage ami" is true to . its convictions. It does not desert i ts fri ends. It carne into power when the Repnb'lic was on the verge of

irretrievable ruin . Under its administration the Union was. saved and the Republic was consolidated and entered upon a career of unparalleled prosperity. It brought the dreadful Civil War to a Close; ·and treated the counti:y ' s fallen foes with a mercy and magnanimity never before recorded in history .. Where it is in .power, ei ther in the .FederaL Government or in

a State, its authority is respected at home and abroad, good order prevails, manufactures flourish, life and prosperity arec .

· safe, religious l iberty is rarely violated. Let Utah be H.epub­li can and her reputation will stand far higher than· i f she should be Democratic. Cap i tal will feel more secure and will flow in, progress wi ll ' be more assured, and a better element will seek homes within her borders. To sustain this state­ment I have but to point to the difference in the conditions of

those States governed by Republicans and those under DciT).o­cratic rule. In what States of our Republ ic do we read of the· most frequent lynch ings ? In which are human lives taken by mobs, property destroyed, society disturbed by violenc·e and the laws ser at de-fiance the oftenest ? In which is it most· dangerous to preach unpopular religious .doctrines ? My readers can all answer these · questions as well as I. Certainly it is not in Republican States or in Republican communities. where such violent deeds occur mo!lt frequently.

Democratic doctrin es, as we see their fruits in the States. to wh i ch I refer, tend to loosen the bonds which hold com ­munities together. · They produced the secession of S tates. The same incl ination would produce the secession· of counties. and of cities, and their natural tendency is to anarchy.

For these reasons, and many more which m ight be enumer­

ated, I prefer Republ icanism-speaking in .the partisan sense­to Democracy. The Republican party' s policy is the best for· the people of Utah, and therefore I must utter my protest against the arguments which we hear to the effect that the: people of U tah should all be Democrats.

mormondocs.org