The Deseret Weekly.

REMARKS

By President George Q. Cannon, and
President Wilford Woodruff, at
the Sixty-first Semi-Annual Con-
ference of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, Oct.
6th, 1890, immediately following
the adoption by the General As-
sembly of the Manifesto [Official Declaration 1] issued
by President Wilford Woodruff
in relation to Plural Marriages.

President George Q. Cannon.

On the 19th of January, 1841, the
Lord gave His servant Joseph Smith
a revelation, the 49th paragraph of
which I will read:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
when I give a commandment to any
of the sons of men, to do a work unto
my name, and those sons of men go
with all their might, and with all they
have, to perform that work, and cease
not their diligence, and their enemies
come upon them, and hinder them
from performing that work; behold,
it behoveth me to require that work
no more at the hands of those sons of
men, but to accept of their offerings." [Doctrine and Covenants 124:49]

The Lord says other things con-
nected with this, which I do not
think it necessary to read, but the
whole revelation is profitable, and
can be read by those who desire to
do so.

It is on this basis that President
Woodruff has felt himself justified
in issuing this manifesto.

I suppose it would not be justice
to this Conference not to say some-
thing upon this subject; and yet
everyone knows how delicate a sub-
ject it is, and how difficult it is to
approach it without saying some-
thing that may offend somebody.
So far as I am concerned, I
can say that of the men in
this Church who have en-
deavored to maintain this principle
of plural marriage, I am one.
In public and in private I have
avowed my belief in it. I have de-
fended it everywhere and under all
circumstances, and when it was
necessary have said that I consid-
ered the command was binding and
imperative upon me.

But a change has taken place. We
have, in the first place, endeavored
to show that the law which affected
this feature of our religion was un-
constitutional. We believed for years
that the law of July 1, 1862, was in
direct conflict with the first amend-
ment to the Constitution, which
says that "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." We rested upon
that, and for years continued the
practice of plural marriage, believing
that law against it to be an unconsti-
tutional one, and that we had the
right, under the Constitution, to
carry out this principle practically
in our lives. So confident was I in
relation to this view that in conver-
sations with President Grant, and
with his Attorney General, ex-
Senator Williams, of Oregon, I said
to them that if my case were not
barred by the statute of limitations
I would be willing to have
it made a test case, in order that
the law might be tested. We were
sustained in this view not only by
our own interpretation of the
amendment to the Constitution, but
also by some of the best legal minds
in the country, who took exactly the
same view that we did—that this
law was an interference with relig-
ious rights, and that so long as our
practices did not interfere with the
happiness and peace of society, or
of others, we had the right to carry
out this principle. In fact, it is
within six or eight months that, in
conversation with two United
States Senators, each conversation
being separate from the other, both
of them expressed themselves,
though not in the same language,
to this effect: "Mr. Cannon, if this
feature that you practice had not
been associated with religion, it
might have been tolerated; but you
have associated it with religion and
it has aroused the religious senti-
ment of the nation, and that senti
ment cannot be resisted. So far as
the practice itself is concerned, if
you had not made it a part of
your faith and an institution
sanctioned by religion, it might
have gone unnoticed." I do
not give the exact language; but
these are the ideas that they con-
veyed to me. Now, we were very
confident that this law was an un-
constitutional one. President Dan-
iel H. Wells will remember how he
and I tried to get a case to test the
constitutionality of the law during
the lifetime of President Brigham
Young. We wanted to get Brother
Erastus Snow. It is the last thing
that we should have thought of to
put a man like he was in the gap
if we had not been firmly convinced
that the law was unconstitutional
and would be declared so by the
United States Supreme Court. We
telegraphed to Brother Erastus in
the south, thinking that his case
would not by barred by the statute
of limitations. He replied to us
concerning it, and we found that it
was barred. Brother A. M. Musser
proposed himself, if I remember
aright, to be a test case; but there
was a defect in his case. We want-
ed this case, whenever it was pre-
sented, to be presented fairly, that
there should be no evasion about it,
but that it should be a case that
could be tested fairly before the courts
of the country. Finally, Brother
George Reynolds was selected.
I said to myself, when I learned the
result, "it is the last time that I will
ever have anything to do with a test
case again which will involve the
liberty of anybody." I was promised
when he was sentenced, by one
high in authority and who had the
right to make the promise, that he
should be released, when the cir-
cumstances were told to him; for
they were laid fairly before him,
and he was told that the evidence
had been furnished by Brother Rey-
nolds himself, and that everything
had been done to make it a test
case; the government had been
aided in the securing of witnesses,
and no difficulty thrown in the
way. Afterwards, on the second
trial, I believe Brother Reynolds'
lawyers got frightened, and there was
something occurred then that gave it
a different appearance. But when the
facts were related, as I stated, to one
high in authority, he promised me
that George Reynolds should be par-
doned. There were those, however,
in this city who were deter-
mined that he should not escape
imprisonment, and the prose-
cuting attorney wrote a letter
which changed the mind of this
high official, as he afterward told
me, and he declined to carry out
that which I had received as a pro-
mise. But even then there were
circumstances connected with this
decision that made us reluctant to
accept it.

Since that time the history of
proceedings is before you and before
the world. We have felt as though
this command of God was of such
importance to us, involving so many
serious consequences, that we should
do all in our power to have the
world know the position that we
occupied. There may be men among
us who believed they would be
damned if they did not obey this,
accepting it as a direct command
from God. Therefore, you can un-
derstand how tenaciously we have
protested, and how vigorously we
have endeavored, as far as we
could, to make public our views
upon this subject.

I suppose there are two classes
here today in this congregation—
one class who feel to sorrow to the
bottom of their hearts because of the
necessity of this action that we have
now taken; another class who will
say: "Did I not tell you so?" "Did I
not tell you it would come to this?"
"Did I not say to you that you
ought to take advantage of and
comply with this years ago, instead
of enduring that which you have
suffered since that time?" There
may be men here today who pride
themselves on their foresight, and
who take credit to themselves be-
cause they foresaw, as they allege,
that which we have done today, and
would lead others to believe that if
their counsel had been adopted, if
the views that they presented had
been accepted by the people, it
might have saved very serious con-
sequences to us all and left us in a
better position than that which we
occupy today. But I, for one, differ
entirely with this view. I belive
that it was necessary that we should
witness unto God, the Eternal
Father, unto the heavens and unto
the earth, that this was really a
principle dear to us—dearer, it might
be said, in some respects, than life
itself. We could not have done this
had we submitted at the time that
those of whom I speak suggested
submission. We could not have left
our own nation without excuse. It
might have said, "Had we known
all that you tell us now concerning
this, we should have had very dif
ferent views about this feature of
your religion than we did have."
But now, after the occurrences of
the past six years have been wit-
nessed by this entire nation and by
the world, and by God the Eternal
Father and the heavenly hosts, no
one can plead as an excuse that
they have been ignorant of our be-
lief and the dearness of this prin-
ciple to us. Upwards of thirteen
hundred men have been incar-
cerated in prison, going there for