BANCROFT LIBRARY <>- THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Review of Elder Penrose's Exculpatory Address Delivered Oct. 26th, 1884, in Twelfth Ward Meeting House. Elder C. W. P^nrose, on Sunday last, the 26th of October, again put himself forward before the puijiio in Ihe Twelfth Bishop's Ward of Mils city as a self appointed charn- pioo of the Mormon Church, to apologize for the Mountain Meadows Missacre, and to palliate, if notap^prov-, that horrible crime, but all the waters of the Jordan, applied with all the authority of their unholy*,pnest- hooi will never, iu time nor eternity, wash away the indelible stain from that church. He began by <1: daring that the report of the horrid murder had spread throughout the civilized worid, and wherever the elders had gone to preach their gospel, they were confronted with it. and the church led by Brigharn Young was charged with the crime, especially by ministers of Christian churches. Ye*, and well it may. In fu ail- ment of Jesus'.s words, that which was done iu secret is declared openly ; that which the elders of the Church swore never to divulge, aud the Deseret News, the organ of the mur- derous pne^tho id, would not publish, is told tothewho'e world, from press, pulpit and platform. It is an eternal principle and law f nature ana morals, that that which men sow they shall reap: they may cover it over with dirt and ruobish, but the very covering finally strengtheus the growth. That church sowed the wind, and it is reaping ihe whirl- wind. It must be so iu the very nature of things; aLd the more the elders, by their apologies and explanations, stir the filthy matter, the more the foul stanch arises, aud pure, sensitive natures are disgusted. THE FANATICAL REFORMATION. Penrose was not in Utah during that pe- riod of the Reformation, and knows not the spirit or actions of tlw Church, yet he at- tempts to defend it Irom the truthful attacks of those who know much better th*n he. Bui can we say in charity towards him, that "Where iguorauce is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise?" JNO; for he distorts his vision as he ' looks, and is unablu to weigh evidence cor- rectly by reason of his deep rooted Was and hatred of the truth. Be must be called the Great Denier. That Brigham Yonng and the whole Church is morally responsible for the horrid deed, as the result of their ia- famous preaching during the years previous, no sane m'md can honestly deny, and Fen- rose's -acknowledgement that b ood-atone- ment was preach d by the "First Presi- dency" is indubitable pjoof. Brigham light- ed the torch and others applied it as a duty. He seemed to be ignorant of human nature and of the elements he dea t with, and this massacre, with otner murders, were the le- gitimate consequences. In Penrose's harangue, giving his version of the deed and its circumstances, he states that reports were rife that the company al- luded to spoke disrespectfully of Brtgham, of Joseph Smith, and of the whole Church; that they robbed hen roosts, flipped off the heads of chickens while passing through the streets, poisoned springs of water and beef given to the Indians, and threatened the Mormons with the United States Anuy. But he wlil not vouch for the correctness of such accusations. He is not quite hardened enough yet to do so. Then if he cannot say such reports are true, why does he givo them? Why pursue such a line of argument or thouerht, when he acknowledges they may be false? To MAKE A FALSE IMPRESSION on hearers and readers; and such a purpose aud such language are really not only un- worthy but dishonest, such reports never were obtained or he*rd of until after the horrid deed was perpetrated. And such re- ports were absolutely unreasonable. Was it at all likely that any respectable and rich company as they were, would be guilty of such folly? Would they not. 7 n passing through the several settlements wh^re Mor- mon laws aud officers existed, have been justly arrested aud punished? Could they have possibly escaped through al 1 the Terri- tory to the southern boundary without be- ing detected in such nefarious acts and ar- rested aud punished in those times? Utter- ly impossible! Who ever heard of emi- grants who hnd to travel thousands of miles, day after day, having qu-ntiries of poison with them for any purpose? The very ques- tion is preposterous, and th accusation carries the lie on its face. That such a false report was used to , bee ana othet s is no doubt true, first uttered at the place of i.lot- tingthe murder, But the slightest reflec- tion would have shown its absurdity, did men not wish it to be true. Even Peoroae does not certify to its correctness, ye* uses it for a sinister motive. But if these emi- grants did speak disrespectfully of Brlgham, old Joe Smith and tne Church, should they be murdered for it? Were they worthy of such a cruel death by a holy church? Penrose palliated ihe massacre, by stating that those at that helli-h council held in Cedar City, composed of the ruling priest-- hood and common elders there, took into consideration the depiedations which had been made by this party of emigrants, ana Were excited, thinking of th* persecutions they had experienced beforetlme, and thus he is himself guilty of the murder morally. His language couveys that feeling to every perceptive mind. He aiSecta to prove that Brigham was nei- ther accessory before nor after the facts. He tries to analyze the testimony implicit- ing George A. Smith, to exonerate him, but lie fails. What right has any man to order, counsel or command farmers or tradespeo- ple not to sll their surplus produce and goods 60 emigrants or Gentiles? The advice or ..threat or desire is in itself INCIPIENT MURDER. To prevent persons from seeing or giving to the hungry or naked is to be guilty of murder, and in no other part of this broad continent would such counsel be ordered aud carried out. Of what value is George A. Smith's affidavit that he was innocent? Would he not avail himself of the provision of the law, not to criminate himself? The testimony of many is that he, in his tour southward shortly befor^tne massacre, in- structed the people to sell no grain or pro- vl ions to the emigrants, and his acknowl- edged coupling the coming of tbe Hrmv with the keeping of the grain for emer- gencies shows his secret desire*. Though George A. Siuirh states in his affidavit that lie "encamped witu Jacob Hamiiu, P. T. Farnsworth, S. 8. Smith, and Elijah Hoops," he never mentions having j mrueyed to sev- > eral settlements with John I). Lee, of which ther** is ample , proof. Was it merciful in s*id Smith to counsel not to sell the emi- grants ;uiv thing which they needed, eveu for th*ir teams? If Brigham was not accessory before the fact, what does h mean in hts published letter to Col W. H. Dame, dated September I4tb, 1857? "In case the Unit d States G >v- ernment should send out an overpowering force we intend to ly to the dispatch received by James H4Slam, and declares that he searched for tht letter and found it in a letter copying book in the President's office, a 1 d he read it before that larg con- gregation. It purports t<^ be dated Septem- ber 10, 1857, giving information about the progress of the United States Army, and closes by advising them to "let the emi- grants go in peace; that the people must protect their owu lives, hut not interfere with the emigrants " Now, that must be a co *l, intentional falsehood, a willful and rte- liberatf lie. No such letter ever was written and copied, /vs soon as the Church was charged by the outside world with the order- ing of the massacre, "tliligenp search was nwde through Brighitn's copying books in his office for any letter in reply to the mes- sage fyJas. Hasiam, nnd no letter nor copy was I'jund, from dniyht or Lee, or a reply to their letter, though ir was inv triab'y the tule aud practice of the office, not only to cony letters sent, but to preserve aou "pigrou- hole" all letters a f id corn. 1876. before Wm Clayton, Notary Hubllc, uuder his seal, which was made part of the proceeding^ of the last trial of John D. Lee. The questions asked were constructed and sha-jed in such a way as to be easy on Brig- ham and not '-criss-cros-es " as he once said by whom they were propounded is not known and he answers as follows: BRIGBAM'S SUBTERFUGES. "Thirteenth Did you about the 10th of September, 1857, receive a communication from Isaac C Hateht, or any <>th*-r person of Cedar City, concerning a company of emi- grants called the Arkansas Company ? Answer t did receive a communication from Isaac C. Haight or John D. Lee, who was a farmer for the Indians. Fourteenth Have you that communica- tion? Auswer I have not. I have made dili- gent search ior it but cann t find it. Fifteenth Did yu answer that communi- cation? Answer I did, to Isaac C. Haight. who was then acting President at Cedar City. Sixteenth Will you state the substance of your letter to him? Answer Yes. It was to let this company of emigrants, and all companies of emigrants, pass through the country unmolested, and to allay the angry feelings of the Indians as much as possible. (Signed) BRIGHAM YOUNG." It is very evident to a legal mind, that the questions in Brieham's deposition were framed purposely to protect him, and to shield him from complicity in the transac- tion. The defendant's counsel had no part In the questioning, or ne would have asked for a copy of that letter Itself to be seen and inserted, or extracts from it. But Brigham produced no letter, nor copy, nor did he say there was a copy, which he would only have been too glad to hav* produced; and it, either in court, or a certified copy of it, would have been conclusive evidence in his favor. But he did not produce It, could not produce it, for it was not iu existence. He would not have had the Haight letter "searched for diligently," if the answer was come-at-able. He could recollect; it was received about September 10th. but did not know whether from Haight or Lee. He could recollect the substance of that reply nearly eighteen years afterwards, but did not tell the sub- stance of Haight or Lee's letter, nor produce the cop- of his reply to refresh his memory or give its date The date of Halght's letter was slso furnished him In the question, which should not have been, if an honest de- position. The document of Itself is of no legal value, only so far as i r tells against Penrose's presumption, as coming from Brighafca. BRIGHAM YOUNG KNEW ALL ABOUT IT. We assert upon evidence that Brigham was informed fully of th^ facts of the murder and the. persons concerned in the same, by John D. lee, in less than one raoutb after the occurrence. He wrote nut a list at Brigham Young's orrier of fifty-five Mormon elders concerned in the dreadful nvissaew, in the presence of a lady in this city who supplied him with the paper at his request. And to her exclamation, "What, Brother I*ee. you don't mean to say that our people were engaged in ihat affair?" He laughed an"eldri'h laigh." There were fifty-eight members of the Mormon Church, which in- cluded presidents, bishons, couu-telors and elder*. As a reward for his her >ic conduct, the knowing Brigham gave him very short'y aft*r the recital of the deed, a woman for his sixteenth wife, whom he inveigled from her man to whom she was a second. We can give the name, with Brieham's welcome plaudit, slapping him on the should -r, "Yes, my boy. vou deserve another wifo." lathe year 1*68, eleven years after the faithful murderous a-^t he was sealed to another wo- man in the Endowment, Home in this city. We have the witness. He lodged ana ate aj Lee's houses manv times several years after the occurrence. It Js but shameless audac- ity and falsehood to t beiieve in or practice polygamy, when he himself had TEN wives then living, and had had thirteen in his brief time? It is sheer hypocrisy and hollow deceit to read either from the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon or Bible to prove their sincerity, practices or belief. It is too thin, Brother Pen- rose. The books are had recourse to only that your vile and deceitful purposes may be sub- served. You can say nd prove from the Bible that adulterers should be killed, but you teach, solemnize and practice marriage with a man to a woman and her mother, al- though a few verses further on in the same chapter the Word says that the three should be burned. OUT UPON SUCH DECEPTION ! He says that the blame, the guilt of the mas- sacre should not be laid at the door of the church because certain of the perpetrators were Mormons. But there were upwards of fifty persons engaged in it who held the priesthood, and each elder has as much au- thority and power as an apoetle. Several persons, witnesses for the Church, swore that there were at least forty men or the Church there, and that it was dangerous, as we know, to refuse to oby the orders given. Isaac C. Maight. W. H. Dame, John M. Hjg- bee, and P. Klineensmith were the author- ized representatives of the whole Church, and to question that, or disobey them was damnation and blood atoning. That is abso- lutely true, so that the waole Church, as a Church, is euilty, whether Individual mem- bers are or not. With petty qulboiing he says that "the offi- cers of the Church are riot the Church; so that if Brigham Young had ordered the mas- sacre, which he did not. It was not the work of the Chureb, but his individual transgres- sion. The Church nev^r endorsed the hor- rid crime and never forgave it." Now he knows that Brisrham was the Church, that the First Presidency are the Church, and disobedience to them entails death here and damnation hereafter. Brigham was tfe head and brains, and all the body must move. The whole Cnurh is responsible for what the officers do, The Church overlooked the horrid crime for thirteen years, and num- bers of the guilty are stilt in it, and wiiS re- main in it uutil death, if not disturbed by the U. 8. officers and the counts. PENROK'S CLOSING YILBNESS. The reckless denier says that "Lee was ta- fcen to the Mountain Meadow*, and there shot on the 23d day of March, 1878 for dra- matic effect Bishop's hook (the truthful sonfessioQ of Lee) is a dramatic one^ c4 this was intended.as a dramatic end to it, to extend its sales, the profits to be given to Messrs. Howard. Bis^oo and Nelson." Now, if the shooting at the Meadows was for dra- matic effect, it was done justly and truly, nevertheless. It did not neutralize nor les- sen the justrc* of the long delayed judgment. So it the book of Lee's confession and his continuous obedience to a vil ainons priest- hood was published for dramatic effect, it i; none the less tri'e and unanswerable, none the less a proof of perfidious "prophets and a vile, Godless system of religion, keep- ingthouand fl menial and moral slavery. But such contemptible slurs and sneering at- tempsat belittling, from svK'lva depraved source aa Penrose and hss Cburch, cannot affect the honor, honesty, integrity, trutb* fulness and haomtie unrposes of the Hon. Wra." W. B u vastly superior to the detracting Penrose in intellect, edoca- tiou. ability and goodi Pe , : 'ial to Ms falsehood. His charge rhat rhr>83 gentlemen, Mr Bishop and Mr. Wm. Neiaon, were to 8na? the book, ; them to publish it. is not is thrown back into his face contemptuously and is only in keeping with the many denials of his dis- course and his scheming Church. Mr. Nel- son had nothing to do with the manuscnpt but to deliver it to Mr. Bishop. The latter only performed a duty to his client and to the world, and the book carries with it evi- denc that it is truthful and reliable v tre- mendous testimony against Mormonism.