Harriet's
testimony came on the next day. Those
who jammed the court room were kept waiting for an hour and a half, because
through some misunderstanding Harriet was not yet present. It was 11:30 before the
court resumed. The Deseret
News printed only that Harriet had been the only witness examined in the
forenoon and that she testified to having been married to Joseph H. Evans on May 6, 1880, and that the ceremony was
performed at the Endowment House in this city by Joseph F. Smith. The Tribune gave the column three
headlines:
"Brother
Evans Will Keep Cousin Rud Company after
Saturday"
"His
Second Wife Testifies Squarely Against Him"
"He
Wanted Her to Keep the Marriage Awfully Quiet."
Harriet's testimony provided some
details that her mother's did not. The Tribune article as quoted is abridged to
avoid much repetition:
Ques: By whom [were
you married]?
Ans: I think it was
Joseph Smith: another man was present,
but he was a stranger. . . . He
[Joseph] wanted the marriage kept quiet; said that he did not want his other
wife to know that were were married.
Cross Examination
I told my mother I was married.
I was married about three o'clock in the afternoon;
don't know that it was Joseph F. Smith who married me; Smith was afterwards pointed out to me
in the Tabernacle, and he looked like the man.
I went alone to the Endowment House and met defendant there; he did not
go home with me; I did not see him again for three weeks. . . . June 1881, and I then went to live with
him in the Nineteenth ward; he visited me there and stayed all night every
other night. Took his meals there
sometimes and sometimes he went to the other woman's; defendant is a blacksmith
and works in the Church shop north and east of the tithing office.
. . . Defendant
stayed all night with me after [I moved back in with my mother] two or three
times a week; he did this all the time until he went away; don't know where he
went; didn't see him after September, 1882; he went away without saying
anything to me about it; he always wanted me to keep the marriage quiet up to
the time he went away; he did not want me to tell anybody I was married to him;
he said the other wife would make a fuss about it, and didn't want her to know
it. I had a conversation with his first
wife about it; it was before I went to live with him in the Nineteenth ward;
she sent for me and I went to see her; did not know what she wanted to see me
for; defendant was present when the
conversation took place; she said she knew
he was coming to my mother's and wanted to know if I was married to him; she
said she would believe me, but would not believe anything he said; she wanted
me to tell the truth about it; I told
her I was married to him; this was before my child was born; it was the first
time I ever told anyone I was married except my mother and sister; . . .
this was the only conversation I ever had with his first wife; she never
visited me in the Nineteenth ward, but used to come and trouble me; I never
told anyone about the marriage after I told Mrs. Evans.
Defendant
commenced courting me a long time before I married him; he used to come to see
me two or three times a week; I never invited him to come; he used to come to
see me evenings for about a year; don't know how long he used to stay.
Mr. Rawlins --
Did he ever stay all night with you before you married him?
Witness
(indignantly) --No, sir. I wouldn't
allow a man to stay all night before I married him.
This answer
created great applause and stamping of feet among the spectators. Judge Zane directed the bailiff to ascertain
the names of those who made the noise. A
diligent inquiry failed to show who the guilty parties were, and the court
administered a general reprimand to the spectators, and admonished them not to
repeat the offense. The witness then
proceeded.
I was 24 or 25 years
old when he commenced courting me; didn't form any attachment for him then;
liked him as well as other men.
"How old was
defendant at that time?" asked Mr. Rawlins.
"He said he
was only 53 years old."
"Quite a
young man," remarked Mr. Rawlins, humorously. "Did you know he was married?"
"He told me
he was married. I was engaged to him
about three months; I had no conversation with him before marriage about where
I was going to live; I didn't ask him how his first wife would feel about it if
I married him; I couldn't tell when I first thought I loved him."
Re-Direct
"I meant to
say I never told anybody of the marriage except Mrs. Evans and the folks at
home; I didn't see defendant after I
testified before the grand jury; after I told Mrs. Evans I was married to him
she used to come to my house and
THROW STONES AT
THE WINDOWS;
I told Evans about it, and he said he would stop it."
Court then
adjourned until two o'clock.
At the afternoon
session Harriet Parry was recalled and testified: "On the nights defendant used to call at
my mother's house after my marriage, he slept with me in the kitchen. I brought my bed into the kitchen."
. . . . .
MRS. ELIZABETH PARRY
was re-called by the defense for
cross-examination and testified: "I
know David Vaughn; I met him on Main street last summer; I did not ask him to marry my daughter Harriet for a
second wife; I don't remember ever telling anyone that my daughter was married
to defendant."
The prosecution
here rested, and the defense called as their first witness
MRS. RUTH EVANS,
The first wife of defendant. She testified: I have been married to defendant 36 years; I
have six children living and six dead; since 1880 defendant has been absent
nearly two years in England; he went away in October, 1882; I am slightly
acquainted with Harriet Parry; about four years ago I heard a rumor that she
was married to my husband; I sent for
her and asked her whether she was married to my husband; she said no; I
said "the day I see you with my husband I'll kill you" (Shaking her
finger she said) "That's what I said."
Prior to my
husband going to England he did not remain away at nights often; I never visited the Parrys; never had any associations with them.
Cross Examination
My son Johnathan was married in 1880 in the fall; there was a
wedding reception at my house that night; the conversation I spoke of that I
had with Harriet, was had, I think, in July, 1880; I can't hardly remember
whether the conversation was had prior to May 1880; I don't remember Harriet
Parry living next to me in 1881; I sent for Harriet because I had heard of the
rumor of her marriage to my husband; I was a little bothered in my mind; I had
asked my husband and he denied the rumor, and I wanted to be a little more sure
than I was, and that is the reason I sent for Harriet; I believed my husband,
but then I wanted to find out more about it and be a little surer.
The next
witness called for the defense was David Vaughn who testified that Mrs. Parry
had encountered him on the street about a year and a half previous and had
asked him if he would not like to take her daughter Harriet as a second
wife. He also stated that Harriet and
her mother had a bad reputation for truth and veracity in the neighborhood. After reporting the cross-examination, the
Tribune stated that the evidence of this witness was so badly shattered that
the defense concluded to stop then and there.
"It is surprising to see how easily the manufactured Mormon
evidence in these bigamy cases fades away like mist before the morning sun
under the crucial cross questions of Mr. Dickson."
The defense attorney, Mr. Rawlins,
and the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Dickson, then made their closing arguments,
and Judge Zane charged the jury. The
jury retired at 4:45 P.M. Mr. Dickson then moved that the prisoner be
remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, and Mr. Rawlins began to argue
against the motion. In fifteen minutes,
at 5:00 o'clock, the
argument was interrupted by the return of the jury. The verdict was that all the jurors found the
defendant, Joseph H. Evans, guilty of the crime of bigamy as charged in the
indictment.
The jury was discharged, and when
the argument resumed over the bail, Judge Zane decided against the motion,
being disposed to let the prisoner go on the old bail till the day of
sentence. The bond on which Joseph had
his freedom was signed by Jonathan W. Evans for $1,500; Thomas L. Evans $1,000;
Wm. H. Evans, $2,000; and Elias Morris $3,000.
Sentencing was fixed for the following Saturday, November 8, 1884
THE TAP ROOT
CONFINED
Saturday morning, November 8, 1854, Joseph H. Evans stood in the
hall outside the court room with Mr. Rawlins, his attorney. Ruth and the boys were already seated
inside. Yesterday had been his last day of freedom for -- he didn't
know how long. He must have spent the
time visiting with family and close friends, perhaps a long talk with
Ruth. In a few minutes he would be
sentenced for his Thursday conviction on one count of bigamy, or polygamy. He knew the maximum sentence for this
"crime" was five years in prison and a $500.00 fine. On Monday last, Rudger
Clawson had been sentenced on one count of unlawful cohabitation for six months
and $300, plus a conviction for polygamy of three and a half years and
$500. At least Joseph had not been
charged with both.
At ten o'clock he was brought before Judge Charles
S. Zane, Justice of the Third District Court, and Chief Justice of the Utah
Supreme Court. Judge Zane asked him if
he had anything to say about why sentence should not be pronounced upon
him. Joseph shook he head, and his
"No" was barely audible. The
Court then delivered the sentence: He
was to be confined in the Utah Penitentiary for three years and six months and
pay a fine of $250. Mr. Rawlins asked
that he be admitted to bail pending an appeal to the supreme
court, but this was denied and the same ruling made as in the Clawson case, that
Mr. Evans be remanded to the keeping of the marshal.
After a tearful good-bye from Ruth
and the boys, he climbed into the wagon, and permitted himself to be shackled
by the marshal, Elwin A. Ireland. He had
no thought of escape, but he was treated in the same way as a vicious criminal
would be. The ride to Sugar House,
usually such a long excursion, was all too short today. Passing through Sugar House, they came into
view of the prison -- or at least of the twenty-foot high adobe wall
surrounding it. This four-foot-thick
structure enclosed an acre of ground and the prison buildings. He could see the turrets on the corners and as
they drew near, he could see the sentries armed with rifles who manned the
catwalks on top of the walls. At the
west wall, the marshall stopped the
horses at the heavy iron and wooden gates long enough for the sentry to inspect
the wagon. Since the sentry knew the
marshal, and there was only the one prisoner, it was a hasty inspection and the
gates were opened immediately. Just
inside the gates was the reception room; so with the gates closed, Joseph's
shackles were removed. Inside, he
started through the humiliating process of admission, of having his body
checked over for any identifying scars, marks, or abnormalities, of putting on
the prison garb. He wondered what it
would be like to be forced to live with men who had committed real crimes. When he was finally ushered into the prison
inmate area, there were sixty men gathered around gazing like wild beasts, it
seemed, ready to pounce upon their prey and devour it.
Rudger
Clawson described his first encounter with Joseph in the prison:
On the afternoon of
my fifth day, Joseph H. Evans, much to my surprise, and in one sense delight,
walked leisurely into the yard, having been convicted of polygamy and sentenced
to three and a half years imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred
dollars. I shook him warmly by the hand
and eagerly enquired for news from the outside.
It is impossible to tell how much I appreciated that first meeting with
this friend behind the dreary walls of Utah's
penitentiary. The prospect of having an
associate, whose hopes and aspirations were similar to my own, filled me with
joy.
Joseph and Rudger
settled in to the routine of prison life, each thankful for the presence of the
other. The prisoners were given the
opportunity to work in exchange for privileges and better food and to relieve
the tedium. Joseph was eventually
trusted to tend turkeys outside the prison walls during the day. Because many of the "tough"
prisoners were escaping with the freedom of such trustee work, most of the
outside jobs were given only to the Mormons, who did not try to escape.
Prisoners were allowed to have
visitors from the outside on regular visiting days, and friends and family
reported back to others in the community stories of prison happenings. From Rudger
Clawson's diary:
To show what
amusing reports reached our friends outside the pen, it was reported of Joseph
in Salt Lake that on one occasion, when a number of roughs fiercely attacked me
with evil intent, he promptly stretched six of them along the ground, and with
intrepid calmness invited the others, who were slinking away, to step
forward. This they modestly
declined. Now, this heroic exploit,
though it reads very beautifully, never in fact occurred. Propriety would seem to suggest, under such
circumstances, that I should take my own part inasmuch as Joseph was about
sixty years of age and I twenty-eight.
During the long winter months that followed, I spent many a pleasant
moment in Joseph's society.
Meantime, finding the charge of
polygamy almost impossible to prosecute because the marriages were not publicly
recorded and plural wives were now hidden, the court turned to the charge of
"unlawful cohabitation." It
was thought that unlawful cohabitation would be easier to prove. Over time, and through the process of trial,
conviction, and appeal, judicial theory on unlawful cohabitation was gradually
defined. It was not necessary to prove
sexual intercourse between the man and woman involved. Heretofore the law had made the second
marriage the crime. Now, the living together,
or even the holding out of two or more women to the world as wives, was made a
misdemeanor. By May of 1885, the courts
began to have success in convicting on the charge of unlawful cohabitation, the
maximum penalty for which was six months in prison and a fine of $300. Four men from Judge Zane's Third District
Court were the first so convicted to enter the prison. Rudger Clawson
again recorded the arrival of the new inmates:
May 2, 1885, our number was
increased by Parley P. Pratt, Jr. He
received a hearty welcome from Joseph and myself.
May 9, 1885. Angus M. Cannon, A.
Milton Musser, and James Watson were convicted . . .brought hammocks attatched (sic) to movable frames, which when properly
arranged for the accommodation of our new guests, left but little unoccupied
space in the bunkroom. Hammocks in a
dungeon! The idea created a great amount
of merriment, as well as dissatisfaction among the prisoners who winked and
smiled and growled until sleep came along and stole away their senses. The scene affected even me, and I must admit
that the air of refreshing comfort which surrounded those hammocks caused an
envious feeling to steal over me, which was not easily subdued.
Owing to the
crowded condition of the prison, the newly arrived brethren, together with
Joseph H. Evans and Parley P. Pratt, Jr., were permitted after this first
night, to occupy the dining room as a "bunk" house. Their beds which were kept in the yard during
the day and which were exposed to the heavy dust storms that often blew up, were carried into the dining room every evening and
removed every morning. The procession of
ten men with five beds, (two men at each) that passed across the yard every day
at dusk and into the dining room, presented quite a fantastic appearance. I was very sorry I was not among those
favored few, and was still doomed to occupy "bunk" room No. 2, as
heretofore.
From many diaries of other prisoners
comes a description of how bad conditions were in regard to getting a good
night's sleep. One could hardly rest
well with the hawking and spitting, foul tobacco smoke, and prisoners screaming
in their sleep. There were also bed-bugs
by the thousands, lice, and other vermin.
There was no insulating protection from the extremes of the weather, and
all these things combined to make the nights miserable. Rudger Clawson's
regret at not being able to join the others in the dining room is
understandable.
Joseph Evans was highly respected by
all, including the warden, as the following incident illustrates, again from Rudger Clawson's diary:
I was reported to
the warden, by Doyle, as having been guilty of insubordination and soon found
myself standing in his awful presence.
Brother Joseph H. Evans was called out at the same time, and as we
wended our way toward the gate everybody supposed that the intention was to put
irons on me, as Joseph did all that kind of work, being a blacksmith. This he afterwards informed me he would have
declined to do at all hazards.
The warden was in
a furious passion.
Warden Dow: Evans, I have called you to be a witness to
this interview, as I cannot trust Clawson. . .
Rudger was
then reprimanded for not kneeling during an Episcopal Church service held in
the prison.
Anyone convicted of polygamy or
cohabitation could avoid a prison sentence by "taking the oath." This expression referred to signing the
following document:
APPLICATION
FOR AMNESTY
TERRITORY OF UTAH
County of _______________
I,
_____________________________being first duly sworn, do depose and say: That I have not been in the practice of
bigamy or polygamy since the __________day of ________________, 18__, that I am
not now a bigamist of polygamist, that I have not since the __________day of
_____ , 18__, nor do I now believe in, advocate, or in any way uphold or
countenance the practice of bigamy or polygamy, and that in the future I will
do all I can to oppose the Mormon Church in its efforts to oppose the laws and
obstruct the due course of justice, and that I will not violate any law of the
United States.
[signed]___________________
Date____________
We recommend the above named
___________ as a proper person to receive amnesty under the sixth section of
the act, entitled: "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes,
in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes.
[signed]___________________Governor
______________________
______________________
______________________
Judges of
the Supreme Court
Some men took this way out of
unhappy plural marriages, or unmanageable economic situations, but they came to
be regarded as apostates, or at least near-apostates. Even though in the later years of
prosecution, a sentence in the pen conferred honor and status, at the time
Joseph was convicted, a stigma was attached to being in the penitentiary. In spite of this, neither he nor any of the
men who served their sentences would agree to sign such a document to gain
their freedom. Joseph wrote a little
verse in the diary of William M. Bromley which expressed his feelings in the
matter: (His Welsh accent helped the rhyming.)
There's a difference 'tween a 'Mormon'
and a Saint,
And I'll tell you the reason why,
The Saint will go to the Penitentiary,
But the Mormon will sneak away.
Chorus:
For his heart is right and his hopes are bright
As clear as the perfect day
He'll build up the kingdom with all his might
And mind what the prophets say.
During the
two years and five months that Joseph actually served in prison, the defense
lawyers and the family were doing everything they could to win appeals or a pardon. It is thought that Ruth was not educated to
write because of earlier documents she signed with an X, but she had a scribe
write for her. She wrote the following
letter on October 5,
1885:
