-[COPY.]-
OGDEN, .
To whom it may concern:
At a meeting of the High Council of Weber Stake, held December 1st. 1891, in the matter of Job Pingree against
Nathan Tanner Jr., it was decided that the charges against Brother Tanner were not sustained.
ALF. W. MILLGATE,
Clerk of the Council.
-[COPY.]-
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, .
To the Presidency and High Council
of the Weber Stake of Zion:
Dear Brethren:
There have been cases tried before your body in which Nathan Tanner, Jr., has been a party. He has been
dissatisfied with the decisions rendered, and has taken an appeal to us, as the first presidency of the Church. The
evidence in the cases has been furnished by Brother A. W. Millgate your clerk.
We have carefully gone through all that has been submitted to us, and not entirely satisfied with the written
evidence, we took the liberty of sending for President L. W. Shurtliff, to obtain information from him upon points
which were not clear to us in the evidence submitted. After hearing from him such explanations as he could furnish,
in addition to the written evidence, we have decided:
First—That instead of the Presidency of the stake and the High Council acting upon the appeal which Brother
Nathan Tanner, Jr[.], made to them from the decision of Bishop McQuarrie and Councilors upon the case decided
by them July 22nd, 1891, by referring it back without hearing to the Bishop's court, to be there further disposed
of, they should have entertained the appeal of Brother Nathan Tanner, and acted upon it.
It appears clear from the evidence, so far as we can understand it, that Brother Tanner had a well grounded
complaint, in that he had a decision rendered against him without the formality of a hearing, and without having any
opportunity to make a defense or justification or explanation of his conduct.
It appears from the record that Brother Tanner had brought to the attention of the Bishop and his councilors
the ill-treatment which he alleges he had received from Brother Job Pingree; and thought he did not make a formal
charge, it was somewhat in the nature of a charge, and was construed as a complaint against Brother Pingree.
The record as submitted to us, does not contain the proceeding which took place before the Bishop's court.
But we have the decision, and in that decision Brother Tanner is condemned
While there may have been sufficient grounds for this decision against Brother Tanner, we think that Brother
Tanner has reason for feeling dissatisfied therewith, because he was not present at the trial of the case, and did not
have an opportunity to defend himself, or to make an explanation.
In expressing our judgemnt upon this point, we do not pronounce upon the merits, or demerits of the case, but
of the irregularity of the proceedings before the Bishop's court. We think that no man's case should be tried without
his having the fullest opportunity to defend himself; neither should judgment be pronounced against him, as in this
case, without his having an opportunity to be heard and make an explanation.
Second,—In a trial before you on [blank] a resolution was adopted by the High Council requir-
ing Brother Tanner to recall the charges he had made, and apologise to Brother Pingree. In pursuance of that resolu-
tion, the minutes state that Brother Tanner said he thought he had done so. "He had intended to do so to meet the
resolution." He then said "I now here unqualifiedly recall every word that I have said with regard to that subject,
and will now say that I regret that I ever used it. I regret that any reference was made to the subject here in this
case, and I ask Brother Pingree's forgiveness[.]" The minutes futher state that at the conclusion of Brother Tanner's
retraction, President Shurtliff asked Brother Pingree if that was satisfactory, and Brother Pingree answered in the
negative. One of the councilors also said that it was not satisfactory to him.
Of course, we can only judge by the minutes that are before us, but upon reading these words of Brother N.
Tanner, Jr., it has seemed to us that Brother Pingree should have been satisfied with that which he said, and not
pushed the matter any further. He had unqualifiedly recalled every word he had said, he had regretted the reference
that had been made to the subject, and he had asked forgiveness. Our judgment is that, that request of his should
have been granted, and it should have been accepted as satisfactory, under the circumstances.
Third—Brother Tanner appeals against the decision of the Presidency and Council that he should go before the
ward and make acknowledgment before the ward, and also before his quorum, for the things he has said in this case
that have been signified by the Council as improper
Brother Tanner in his appeal assigns as reasons for not complying with this, and appealing from the decision:
First.—Because he does not feel that an apology is due.
Second.—Because, if due at all, in his opinion the proper place would be before the council or the bishop and his
counselors, that being the place where the statements were made.
If it be true that the statements which were objected to were made before the council or the bishop and his
counselors, and not in public, then it appears clear to us that he should not be required to go before the public in the
ward and make acknowledgments, but that his acknowledgment should be confined to the place where the statements
complained of were made, and to those who heard him in that place. Of this, we are not in a position to decide, be-
cause we do not know whether his statement is sustained by evidence that he was only before the council when
he made these allegations. But the last paragraphs in Section 42 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenents make
very clear the point that a confession of wrong doing shall be confined to those who have heard or witnessed the wrong
doing, and shall not be made more public than this.
Now after thus deciding upon these points that have been submitted to us, it is clear to our minds that both
Brothers Tanner and Pingree ought, in the most humble manner, to confess the wrongs that each has done, not only to
each other, but to the Church, and to the quorum to which they belong, and show by their humility that they are sorry
for the scandal which their conduct has created in the midst of the saints. We say this without entering into any ar-
gument concerning the right or wrong of either party. It is very evident that a bad spirit has been engendered, and
the saints have had their feelings hurt. Even at this distance from the scene we have been made to painfully feel that
these brethren in their disputes were bringing discredit to the cause of Christ. One may say that the other was the
origin or cause of all this, and that he was provoked to say and do certain things, because of the words or actions of
the other. But even if this be true, it is not a sufficient justification for all that has been said and done in this dispute
or difficulty between these brethren. They both should humble themselves before the Lord, and obtain his forgiveness,
and endeavor to remove whatever bad impression their words or acts may have made upon their brethren and sisters
in the Church.
With kindest regards, we remain, your Brethren,
W. WOODRUFF,
GEO. Q. CANNON,
JOS. F. SMITH.
First Presidency of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.