Mark R. Ashurst-McGee, Religion
In the Council of Fifty’s earliest years and in its last years, it appears that within the Council of Fifty there was an executive body of seven men. In historical literature, the only references to the Utah group of seven are D. Michael Quinn’s two citations of Council of Fifty member (and Apostle) Franklin D. Richards’ journal. On 23 June 1882, Richards recorded the following in his journal: 2 Sessions in Council of the Kingdom Committees were appointed to see after Election affairs in Idaho Territory in Nevada State-and seven John Sharp, W[illia]m Jennings, W[illiam Henry] Hooper R[obert] T[aylor] Burton, J[ohn] R[ex] Winder, A[ngus] M[unn] Cannon & Moses Thatcher-for an executive committee to meet the Commissioners with lists of names from each county for Registration of officers, Judges of Elections & any & all other duties.
Franklin D. Richards’ journal shows that in 1882, near the end of the council’s formal existence, an executive committee was formed within the Council of Fifty. Richards also noted that the “Committee of Seven” met on 10 October 1882, 10 April1883, and 8 October 1884.
WHAT I DID
The full scope of my project is to thoroughly search for information about the 1880s group of seven, the probable 1844 group of seven, and the connection between the two. The first step was to survey and read in all the secondary literature on the Council of Fifty to search for general information and any clues about either group of seven. This reading gave me an excellent grasp on the Council of Fifty’s history and historiography. No further explicit information was found concerning the 1880s Committee of Seven. Related information and hints were found. Another result of this survey of the literature is the annotated bibliography appended to this report.
From this point on, I spent the grant focussing on the 1880s Committee of Seven exclusively. The second step was to plow through the day-by-day record in the Journal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the time of the organization of the Committee to its last known meeting two years later. Nothing was found.
The third step was to read in general and political histories of Utah to find the political background that the Committee worked in. This proved to be very enlightening and successful in my interpretations.
The fourth step was to search for primary and secondary documents by or related to the seven committee members. I compiled a list of diaries, journals, letters (to/from), and other documents produced by the seven members between the time of the committee’s organization and the death of each member. The list also includes any secondary source that is significantly concerned with any of the seven men between the organization and their death. This list exhausts the normal holdings of Brigham Young University, the University of Utah, and Utah State University, the Special Collections of BYU and UU, the Archives of BYU, the Church Historical Department Library, and the unrestricted documents of the CHD Archives. I have yet to comb through the Utah State Historical Society and the special collections of USU.
Eventually I will read all of the items on the list. At the present, I have read through every-thing on the list that was produced or covers the years in which the committee functioned: 1882-1884. Unfortunately, this research did not yield any explicit details about the Committee of Seven. However, I was able to chart the political activities of the seven men during this time, and it appears that some of these activities, if not many of them, are a function of their membership in the Committee of Seven.
WHAT I FOUND
The Mormons, through bloc-voting in the People’s Party, controlled who was elected to political offices in the territory. The Edmunds Act, passed in March of 1882, used polygamy as a smokescreen and a focus in a deliberate attempt to break the political power of the Mormon Church.
Mormons had avoided trouble with previous legislation, and did not know what to expect. In April, the Council of Fifty met in its normal after-Conference meetings. Later, at the end of the month, George Q. Cannon was denied his seat as Territorial representative to Congress. At this point, the Church became very concerned about the Edmunds Act. Some of the provisions of the act were to bar polygamists from public office and to disfranchise them. To do this, the government sent a delegation of men, the Utah commission, to run the elections and make sure no polygamist voted or was elected. Mormons had always run the election and were concerned about fairness. The Utah Commission would arrive in August to take over election affairs. It appears that this is the impetus for the intensified role that the Council of Fifty took on at this time. The Council met all day for six days in June. Franklin D. Richards’ journal shows that one of the concerns was elections: three committees including the Committee of Seven was organized to see after election affairs during the June meetings.
Klaus Hansen found hardly anything concerning the 1880s council. D. Michael Quinn and Andrew Ehat document the 1880s council but say that it was of little importance. However, it appears that they underestimated it under John Taylor’s presidency. It is true that Brigham Young did not attach much importance to the Council. However, John Taylor reorganized the Council of Fifty before he reorganized the First Presidency, when the Edmunds Act became a threat he escalated its meetings, it was further organized with an executive committee, and met in four of 1983s. months rather than the two post-Conference meeting times the Council held in 1880 and 1881. The Council of Fifty was practically effective: the Mormon’s stayed in power throughout 1883 and 1884. Furthermore, the Council’s inactivity between 1885 and 1887 cannot be used to devalue it when even the First Presidency was scattered on the underground.
The Utah Commission was very influential in the Utah elections. They stopped the scheduled August election. The unfilled offices created a scramble for power. The Commission disfranchised polygamists and appointed an unrepresentative number of Mormons, Gentiles, and apostates to fill the new election affairs offices. In 1884, the Commission tried to disfranchise women voters, which would cut the Mormon vote in half. It must be in response to these election issues that the Committee of Seven continued to function until the fall of 1884, when they were forced underground by the judicial crusade.
Brigham Young taught that the Council of Fifty members should be the chairmen of political committees in Deseret. In this way, all political affairs would be controlled by the Council of Fifty. This idea of interlocking seems to be exemplified in the Committee of Seven. For example, John Sharp was the chairman of the Territorial Central Committee of the People’s Party. William Jennings was the Mayor of Salt Lake City and was a counsellor to John Taylor in the Presidency of Zion’s Board of Trade. William H. Hooper had been the Territorial delegate to Congress for a decade, helped George Q. Cannon in Washington, was the President of ZCMI and of the National Bank of Deseret-because of his immense political influence in Utah Congress called him “the Mormon Richelieu.” Robert Burton was the Salt Lake County Assessor (in charge of voter registration and elections). John R. Winder was the assessor and collector for Salt Lake City (in charge of voter registration and elections).
It makes sense that Burton’s and Winder’s positions related to elections affairs below the territorial level. With the arrival of the Utah Commission, the Church could only control elections affairs below the territorial level. This is why Franklin D. Richards journal mentioned committees formed to control elections in Idaho and Nevada Territories and in Utah Counties. Moses Thatcher is the link that interlocks the executive committee and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Quinn calls the Council of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles the “shadow government behind the shadow government”). William H. Hooper died on 30 December 1882, but Franklin D. Richards mentions Committee of “Seven” meetings later. Was Hooper replaced in the Committee? If so, I think that the prime candidates are George Q. Cannon, John T. Caine, or William B. Preston.
I found some information that is related to the Committee of Seven’s election duties. George Q. Cannon wrote Angus Cannon letters discussing such topics as his work in Washington, John T. Caine’s election as territorial delegate to Congress, and the Edmunds act. Robert Burton’s diary contains many interesting entries. The day after the Committee of Seven was organized, Burton writes, “came to the Council! House to a Committee meeting.” On 29 June 1883, Burton met with a Committee just previous to the Council of Fifty meeting on the same day. On 29 Sept 1883, five days before a Council of Fifty meeting, Burton wrote, “attended a Political meeting at City hall ((Committe[e] meeting).” These three meetings are likely meetings of the Committee of Seven. On 14 May 1883, 26 July 1883, 9 August 1883, 10 August 1883, and 9 Jan 1884 Burton write of his attendance at “committee” meetings. Whether or not these were Committee of Seven meetings is impossible to tell.
Burton also has some entries that seem to describe the Committee of Seven’s work. On the morning of 28 June 1883 (there had been a Council of Fifty meeting the day before and there would be another on the afternoon of this day) Burton was at a “meeting of the exec[u]tive Committe[ e) of People’s party all the legal Gent[l]men engaged by the people.” This appears to mean that they were working on finding non-polygamist (legal) men to represent the Mormon party. A few days later, on 3 July, Burton “attended meeting of Ter[ritorial] Executive Com[mittee] at City Hall.” On 6 August of 1883, Burton wrote, “election day was in the City all day.” These entries show Burton carrying out the duties, and probably the actual work, of the Committee of Seven.
Burton never missed one of the established Council of Fifty meetings during 1882-1884 and he referred to them in his journal as attending “Counce!”; Burton does not use this word for any other functions. This is interesting considering his entries for the end of August 1882 when the Utah Commission arrived:
21 August: “attended a political meeting at City Hall” 22 August: “with several other Gentlemen I called on the Utah Commissioners at the Continental” 25 August: “attended Council! meeting on the political situation of the Territory … Coinmissioners is[s]ued rules for registration today” 26 August: “Meeting again today at 10 AM [at] the Endowment house to councell on same question as yesterday” 28 August: “another Councell at Endowment house” 1 September: “attended Counce! meeting in Endowment house” 10 September: “did not attend meeting was engaged in some political matters with Bro Cannon & others all day”
All these entries attest to Burton’s involvement with other unnamed men in meetings which he refers to as he does Council of Fifty meetings. These may be Council of Fifty meetings that Quinn and Ehat missed. On the other hand, perhaps they are Committee of Seven meetings, for they deal with the arrival of the Utah Commission, and that means they are concerned with election affairs. I have also taken notes on all other political activities of members of the committee between 1882 and 1884. Some of these activities may be a function of their Committee of Seven membership.
For example, Moses Thatcher was sent on a diplomatic mission to the Shoshoni nation (Thatcher dissuaded head chief Washakie from going to war against the United States). Thatcher also went to help John T. Caine in Washington, and headed groups to explore and purchase lands in Mexico for polygamist colonies and a possible exodus of the Mormon Kingdom. Robert Burton made several efforts to protect Church property from government seizure. In 1884 he went on a trip through Southern Utah with John Taylor (who was the Standing Chairman of the Council of Fifty) and four other members of the Committee of Seven that involved mining interests.
WHAT I HAVE YET TO DO
I have yet to read the material regarding the seven men in later years. I have yet to scour the diaries, journals, and letters produced between 1882 and 1884 by all other Council of Fifty members. And I have more work to do on the 1844 group of seven. The grant you have given me has been a very helpful and very appreciated blessing to my project.