individuals regarding the amount due one for labor and service. The employee claimed twenty dollars as a balance due; the employer refused to pay this amount, alleging that the services had been sufficiently remunerated when rendered, and were so acknowledged at the time by the employee. The two disputants agreed to refer the matter to the decision of the two men who acted in the capacity of Teachers, one belonging to each ward in which the disputants respectively lived. They met, heard the statement of the two parties, consulted together privately and decided that the employer should pay the employee five dollars, and that that sum should be a liquidation in full of all indebtedness. The employer assented, but the employee objected and appealed the matter to the Bishopric of the Ward, consisting of the Bishop and two Councilors, who compose a Bishop's court. Before these three as arbitrators the disputants presented themselves, and were permitted to bring witnesses to further establish their statements if they desired.

The parties each stated their own case, the witnesses giving their evidence, without oath or affirmation, and the arbitrators having heard all, consulted and gave their decision, which was: that the evidence offered showed that the employee had acknowledged to these parties that payment had been received according to the value at which the services were then rated, and was therefore not entitled to any further remuneration.

This decision was accepted by both parties, and the matter was thus settled without cost to either. An appeal might have been taken (under the laws of the Church) to a higher court, composed of fifteen members, if either party desired it, where the investigation would have been still more searching, and a larger scope of evidence admitted. In cases involving greater interests, pecuniary or otherwise, this might perhaps have been done, but the same spirit would have pervaded the entire process, viz., a desire to harmonize existing differences without the antagonistic feelings so generally excited by the same. However intricate the case, or prolonged the investigation, no expense is incurred by either party, and as a general rule no publicity is given to the matter, so that the social relations of parties interested need not be disturbed by the ill-advised meddling of those perturbed spirits who are always ready to magnify trifles to the disadvantage of both parties in dispute.

66

I have now endeavored briefly to give you the modus operandi" among the Latter-day Saints. Of course you understand that it is generally among our own members that this obtains. Mormons are sometimes forced into litigation by the outsiders who would not agree to any such method of settling differences, and in those cases they must defend themselves by legal process, and do not incur disapprobation by so doing.

*

*

*

*

*

*

The Mormons claim that their system is founded upon the fol

lowing five cardinal principles, viz: Equality, Equity, Arbitration, Co-operation, and Conservatism. As far as their system of settling disputes is concerned, I think the claim well founded. Co-operation having awakened the animosity of the trader, we need not marvel that it should call forth denunciation from those whose whole education and life leads, for the sake of a fee, to the prostitution of intelligence to make the worse appear the better reason.

66

It is these councils, or secret courts as they are termed, that awaken the most violent opposition among the non-Mormon population in Utah. That a people should settle differences and disputes in private, that reputable citizens should freely give their time to act as referees, and that the entire community should consequently move on harmoniously and united, fills the average mind with astonishment, and the lawyer with disgust. And yet with such a system as has been described in the foregoing example, why should not unity of object and action prevail among the Mormons? With the absence of litigation there is at once removed the fountain head of most of the heart-burnings, passions, and recriminations which infect social relations. The very existence and general adoption of such a system must necessarily throw a barrier between the people and those who refuse to acknowledge it; a wall far more adamantine than mere difference in belief in creed or religious observances. Even with the elimination of polygamy, or the incarceration of the 2,000 polygamist husbands, a majority of whom became such before it had been declared illegal, there could be no hearty alliance between communities acting from such fundamentally different motives.

It is folly to charge that Mormons are driven by priestly terrorism from our civil courts to a free court of conciliation and equity in view of the above facts. Beside such a method of adjusting disputes what superior advantages can our complicated system of jurisprudence offer? The charm cannot lie in the pleasure of feeing a lawyer who offers the use of his brains to the first comer, or in popular confidence in the integrity of our judges. Either suggestion would alike give occasion for a smile of derision. For over fifty years this system has stood, and that it commands the confidence and respect of the Mormon people is evidenced in the fact that the records of the much vaunted superior civil courts show hardly a case of Mormon suing Mormon. They are self-imposed and self-endured, and the uniform practice of the Mormon people sufficiently show that they meet all the requirements of social life. To strike down. Mormonism, then, is to strike down, not alone Co-operation, but the principle of Arbitration as well; and for what? To foster a narrow

selfishness in trade, to increase the power of monopoly and widen the already extended horizon of legally enforced destitution and misery. It is to strike a blow at the peace of society by supplanting the spirit of conciliation and equity with the fell spirit of discord and strife that perennially blossoms on the tree of legal litigation. Whether priestly or secular, arbitration commends itself to every candid mind, and a community in which the grasping monopolist and the fee-seeking and strife-producing lawyer are alike ineligible to membership, is one which should awaken interest in the bosom of every intelligent producer.

While differing from the Mormons widely in their religious tenets, I will not be behind them in liberality and toleration. As a social system it has my warmest admiration, and I cordially indorse the views of a Mormon friend who writes to me in these words:

66

If

If the United States were to take pattern by the "Mormons" in these matters it would rid the country of an army of unrighteous and unjust judges, and a horde of legalized robbers known as lawyers, who feed on discussion and get rich on other people's means. such principles as are in vogue among the Mormons were to prevail among the various nations, what an immense amount of treasure could be devoted to the service of the race, to say nothing of the millions of valuable lives sacrificed, to satisfy the ambition of kings and rulers, that could be saved to devote their lives to more useful pursuits. It would curtail expenses and save the taxpayers much means thrown away to prosecute legalized murder, etc.

3

WR

CHAPTER VI.

MORALITY AND EDUCATION.

E have seen that the Mormon community is essentially based upon co-operation in business and arbitration in differences; that the arm of the law is never invoked to settle internal disputes, although living in a country where land claims and water rights are never-failing causes of contention among their Christian neighbors. We have seen that the Church by its constitution provides for the impeachment and overthrow of their unsalaried priesthood, whenever they subordinate social requirements to private ends, and thereby lose public confidence. Confidence under these conditions can only result from merit.

A fair and considerate person, hearing a glowing description of a Mormon bishop presenting an inordinate long bill of advances made to the prosperous farmer, would be tempted to think that he must have owed his success in life to this generous aid, that his prosperity was the direct result of wisely directed social effort, and he would see nothing strange in the representative of the Church, the only organization of moral forces in the Territory, presenting the account and demanding of him, for others, like aid. Yet men who claim to be exponents of a religion professedly based on the Golden Rule call this practical illustration of their theoretical profession-tyranny! How much injustice lies in the claim we have already incidentally seen in showing the generous action of the Church in remitting one half of the indebtedness, and further that in such trials as may arise for non-payment the defendant is really before a court in equity where all are heard on their declarations of honor. The pure egotist, the grasping selfish schemer who wants to get all he can, take all if not more than is given to him, and hold all that he has, who knows nought of duty and insists on his rights, who will acknowledge no obligation not backed by legal authority, cannot understand an account appealing to a sense of duty or personal honor, and deems it a flagrant violation of his personal independence. Nor can he realize the fact that any men will give their time, without other remuneration than a sense of well-doing, for the settlement of others' disputes. But I do not propose to rest the case upon inference, or by appeal

ing to motives and sentiments that may not be understood. Let us again appeal to the facts.

In the anti-polygamy law of 1862 it was provided that no church in any territory shall acquire property exceeding in value the sum of $50.000. But, it is still urged, this law could not have a retroactive effect and the Church could still hold the immense tracts already acquired. The census for 1870 gave only three estates in all Utah as exceeding 500 acres! The truth is that the whole extent of Church property, the great monopoly of land enjoyed by the Mormon theocracy, is limited to a ten-acre lot in Salt Lake City—the Temple lot. In brief, land is procured in Utah just as it is in any other Territory, and ninety-five per cent. of the Mormon population live in their own houses, on their own land, to which they hold deeds in their own names. So that if ownership of a home is one of the pre-requisites of a moral community, Utah stands well in the list. Nor will the census of 1880 exhibit any figures to the discredit of Utah. Remembering that the tendency to increase large holdings in land has been very marked of late years, and that Utah is open to all, let us look at the census reports.

Territories.

ESTATES OF 500 ACRES AND OVER IN 1880.

Farms. Over 500 acres. Percentage. Population.

66

75,116 20,789

When we couple this with similar statistics from the three States west of Utah, the effect of the theocracy" upon large estates is still more marked.

10. + Self-supporting and self-reliant

174,768

These figures need no comment. the Mormons have been saved from the plagues attending land monopoly, and of the few large estates given in the census, some are merely held for actual settlers, not for individual aggrandizement.