Statehood and How It Was Achieved

STATEHOOD AND HOW IT WAS ACHIEVED.

BY HON. WM. H. KING, UTAH's REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS.

III.

Utah was further dismembered by the organization of the Territory of Nevada. Agitators, and opponents of the people of Utah advocated its annexation to Nevada, after the latter's weakness became apparent. The scheme, if successful, would have been the most perfect example of the "tail wagging the dog. " In 1867 further effort was made to secure statehood for "Deseret. " A special election was ordered by the legislature, and upon a day designated, a constitution for the proposed state was adopted by a vote of nearly 16,000. Delegate Hooper was also elected representative to congress from the proposed state. He presented the constitution to congress, and in the same year introduced a bill providing for Utah's admission into the union, but no consideration was given the measure by congress. That body, however, was the theatre of numerous efforts to abridge the rights of the Mormon people. Both in the house and senate various measures were introduced from time to time looking to the disfranchisement of the Mormon people, and to their utter deprivation of political liberty and participation in the local concerns of their territory.

On the 7th day of October, 1869, leading citizens from all parts of Utah convened at Salt Lake City for the purpose of memorializing congress against threatened legislation, and to confer statehood upon a people in every way qualified for its enjoyment. At the meeting a strong memorial was presented and adopted. It was also in the nature of a protest against

the wrongs political and otherwise to which the people had been subjected; it also contained a recitation of the efforts made to secure statehood, and earnestl)'^ appealed "to the senate and house of representatives for a dispassionate and unprejudiced consideration of our claims for admission into the union upon an equal footing with other states." Congress was silent in the face of this solemn, and, indeed, pathetic appeal.

In the meantime the territory was being rapidly developed; its population was increasing; its mineral and agricultural resources discovered and utilized; and its productive capacity demonstrated. While its growth was phenomenal, its progresss was stable and permanent. No colony ever had a greater leader. While Brigham Young lived and planned in the present, he was prophetic, and built and provided for the future. He was surrounded by great men; and their interest in Utah's people, in the advancement of the territory, and their solicitude for its future welfare largely accounted for the prosperity of the people. But across the path of Utah's progress came a cloud. Without pausing to consider the causes or to indicate which party was at fault, it is sufficient to say that animosities existed between members of the dominant church and those who were not its adherents. While the refusal of congress to confer statehood prior to the year 1869 cannot be predicated upon opposition from any portion of the people of Utah, I think it can be safely said that the denial of statehood for nearly a quarter of a century thereafter, was based largely upon the opposition thereto from some of the residents of Utah. At any rate the charges of disloyalty preferred, and the representations of the incapacity of the people for self government, afforded a pretext for the press and pulpit through the land to denounce the Mormon people, and also an excuse to the national legislature for a continuation of the territorial system. In 1870 the elements opposed to statehood were crystalized into an organization known as the "Liberal Party." This was followed by a union of the Mormons and their sympathizers in the formation of the "People's Party." For more than two decades thereafter the political history of Utah is the history of these

STATEHOOD AND HOW IT WAS ACHIEVED. 203

parties. The supporters of each felt, no doubt, that the existence of such parties was an anomaly, and many hoped for the dawn of that day when the people could align themselves with the great national political organizations. In a government such as ours a political party should not be the outgrowth of religious controversies, nor should parties be formed to promote or overthrow or control religious thought. Freedom of thought and religious liberty are the birth-right of Americans; and there is no freedom where they are denied or abridged. Political parties are necessities. If all the political truths and the principles which would produce perfection in human government were embodied in one political creed, and the entire community gave allegiance to the party pledged to its enforcement, in time, owing to the weakness of man and his disposition to become oppressive, evils, corruption and tyranny would arise, so that to redress the wrongs then entrenched, an opposition would be organized, either peaceably or by revolution, and a new party formed. Sincere, aggressive, watchful parties, courageously battling for the supremacy of those principles conceived to be necessary to the attainment of the best government, will produce the highest form of government, will produce the highest type of citizenship and result in the highest form of government. In a free government no party can long remain in power when it becomes corrupt or infringes the rights of the people. The question as to the limitations to be placed upon governments, the construction of the fundamental law or constitution, the determination of true functions of government of necessity must occasion honest differences, and these differences will be the basis of party organizations. Religious controversies should not be the foundation of political parties. Of course when political parties invade the domain of conscience or religious thought, they should be rebuked, and new alignments for that purpose may be necessary.