|
A few penciled hand-written notes on a
single sheet of paper bearing no signature, tells a puzzling
yet amazing story. The writing is recognized as that of Helon
Henry Tracy. His usual formal writing was done in pen and
ink with the greatest of care. The following was perhaps something
hurriedly written for his own information to later expand
in detail. It could be titled,
"A
STRANGE AFFAIR"
Oct 17 1889. Left home at 11 P.M. I went to Ritchies
and got Rachel's things and met the rest the folks at the
corner of Parrys. Phebe was complaining and groaning
got her into the buggy but she seemed in distress
Camped at Three mile creek [Later known as Parry,
south of Brigham City]
18. Started out at 8 A.M. Went to Mantua
rained very hard getting us all quite wet Got
into Hyrum at dusk roads very Slippery Camped
in the yard of a Bro Israelson. Phebe sick all
night In the morning at daybreak a Strange
affair happened which caused part of the folks
to remain in Hyrum
19 Started out at 2 P.M. Went 15 miles
made a big campfire on Blacksmith Fort
20. Travelled over Bear Lake divide to Meadowville
rained a little.
21. Went to Paris [Idaho] raining part the time
Stayed at John Suttons [former missionary companion
in England] Loaded up at Montpelier and traveled up
the Kanyon 15 miles. Camped after dark.
22. Made Star Valley at dusk.
Why would someone hastily leave home in
the middle of the night, quickly gather some belongings, and
set out in the cold of October for an unannounced destination?
What was the urgency?
Who were the rest of the folks and where
were they going?
Phoebe had been among the rest of the folks,
where had she been staying?
Does Phoebe's distress indicate an impending
birth?
Is that a proper time, then, to be leaving
home?
Rachel was a plural wife of James Ritchie
and a sister to Phoebe.
Was she going along to help out in extenuating
circumstances?
In the morning of October 20 at daybreak
"a Strange affair happened which caused part of the folks
to remain in Hyrum."
What was the "Strange Affair?"
Who is it that stays behind and why; and
who goes along with H.H. Tracy to Star Valley, or is he going
alone?
What happened to Phoebe and when did any
of them return to Ogden again?
A child was born and a father punished
Yes, a child was born on that stormy October
morning. Her name was to be Sarah Ann Olive Tracy, daughter
of Helon Henry Tracy and Phoebe Draper. But isn't the birth
of a child something to be announced widely and shared throughout
a community with great rejoicing and gladness. Under ordinary
circumstances, the answer is a resounding, "YES!'
But those were not ordinary times. They
were not times when relatives and friends could gather and
share a feast together as had been done by family members
in times past to celebrate the birth of a child. They were
times of fleeing and of hiding. Times of always looking over
ones shoulder. Times of fearing betrayal and discovery. Discovery
of what? Discovery of the fact that H.H. Tracy was still cohabiting
with his plural wives.
Only three years earlier he had been released
from prison after serving almost a year's time for living
in polygamy. In his last court appearance, "The Court
admonished Mr. Tracy to remember that when he is liberated
from the Pen if his conduct does not conform to the requirements
of [the] law he can be called into Court and the suspended
sentence brought down on his head at any time."
Always there was hanging over his head
the possibility of further confinement. Three months into
his original sentence he was hauled into court again and given
another six months sentence. Henry had reason to fear additional
sentences because there were 64 prisoners who were sentenced
a second time while there were 8 who served three sentences
just because they were caught trying to take care of the needs
of their families.
The Daily Herald reported on the circumstances
leading up to William H. Tovey being sentenced to a second
prison term. [His first term was from 1 March 1887 to 2 August
1887. His second term was from 21 April 1888 to 22 Oct 1888.]
THE CASE OF WILLIAM H. TOVEY
FOR UNLAWFUL COHABITATION
The case of William H. Tovey, of the Twentieth
Ward, who was examined yesterday, before Commissioner Norrell,
on a charge of unlawful cohabitation, is one that naturally
incites special comment and sympathy. The defendant is a quiet,
industrious and respectable working man. Not longer than last
August he was released from the penitentiary after serving
a term of six months for the same offense with which he is
now charged.
The evidence for the prosecution, including
his own testimony, given with frankness, was in substance
as follows: His two wives live on adjoining lots. Since his
release from prison he had made his home exclusively with
his legal wife. He had however, with more or less frequency,
on evenings, visited the house of his plural wife, remaining
probably at no time to exceed two hours. The reasons for these
visits were to attend to one of his children who was sick
for several weeks; to instruct his children in their lessons;
to convey means for their support; to carry water, which has
to be taken from a point some distance from the premises,
and to saw firewood. The reason given for his attending to
the two last mentioned items pertaining to the household was
that the plural wife had been lame from childhood and is compelled
to use a crutch, while none of the children are old enough
to perform those labors for her. The defendant had not only
never slept at the house of his plural wife, but had never
even taken a meal there.
What would necessarily be the common sense
and consistent view of a case like this, and therefore the
legal and just one, for consistency and sense, are, or ought
to be, inseparable from law and justice? This would necessarily
be best ascertained by a consideration of what would have
been the course of the defendant had he gone further than
he did in his efforts to keep the law.
He would have neglected the education of
his children and allowed them to grow up as rank, untrained
members of society, which would, as well as the innocents
themselves, thus have suffered injury. He would have refused
to support them and their mother, entailing suffering upon
them causing them to be a public burden. He would have failed
to perform manual labor connected with the household that
could not be attended to by a lame and consequently helpless
woman, and could not be done by the children of tender years.
He elected to extend in these particulars
that assistance the refusal to tender which would have been
disastrous to those who were benefited by it. If a man with
any responsibility in the premises, under similar circumstances,
were to refuse to bestow such necessary benefits, his course
would be condemned by any moral community in existence. How
it can be deemed within the spirit of the law to hold a man
upon such grounds as those adduced appears almost incomprehensible.
Commissioner Norrell evidently had no heart in the case, indicating
by direct expression that he doubted whether a conviction
would ensure if the accused were held. It would have been
appropriate with this condition of the mind of that official
to have given the defendant the benefit of the doubt,. In
this instance the benignant rule in this respect was revered,
and it was awarded to the prosecution.
If by any possible chance Commissioner
Norrell should be mistaken in his view, which conflicted with
his decision, and indictment and conviction ensue, it would
be a good case to present for executive clemency, with a clear
statement of all the facts. The administration has expressed
in favor of the execution of the law without vindictiveness,
the Chief Magistrate having stated that he did not wish the
"Mormon" people to have the opportunity to say with
show of reason, that they were unduly treated by the agents
of the government. (OH Dec. 1, 1887)
There were frequent notices such as the
following, which caused Henry and others to fear further imprisonment:
"Thos. B. Helm, convicted of unlawful cohabitation, was
called for sentence.
" Court--Have you been convicted before?
"Mr. Helm-Yes, sir.
"Court-Is it not a fact that a child has been born to
you by your plural wife since your last imprisonment?
"Mr. Helm-Yes, sir.
"Court-A man cannot continue to thus
live in open violation of the law and expect leniency from
the government. The sentence in your case is that you be confined
in the penitentiary for a period of six months and pay a fine
of $300.00 and costs, and stand committed until they are paid.
(SWS June 6, 1888)
First period of confinement: 13 Dec. 1886 to 13 June 1887.
Second period of confinement: 2 June 1888 to 2 Dec. 1888.
We are reminded again that in their zeal
to punish polygamists and make them conform to the law of
the land--laws that were passed many years after polygamy
had been an accepted doctrine of the LDS Church, some prosecutors
decided that the established prison term wasn't long enough,
with the result that violators of the law could spend a life-time
behind bars.
To obey the laws of the land would mean
that they would have to discontinue any relationships with
their plural wives after being released from the penitentiary.
A "Yes" answer might mean a lighter prison sentence.
But H.H. Tracy and most others answered the question in similar
fashion. "Your Honor, I have no promises to make; the
future alone must determine that question."
These men could not abandon wives that
they had married in good faith while accepting in their hearts
a doctrine that they believed came from God. Older men in
their sixties and seventies often agreed to obey the law and
live with only one wife. The situation was different for the
younger men, however, whose wives and children needed their
care and
nurturing.
The continual need for caution
In his circumstance Henry could not afford
to do anything that would show his non-compliance with the
law. In his penciled notes Henry doesn't mention the birth
of the baby only recording the incident as a "strange
affair" that happened. To mention such a birth and to
admit fathering another child with a plural wife could mean
further imprisonment for him.
"Spotters" were always out looking
for violators of the law. They were watching the meetinghouses
to see who was coming and going and with whom. They were interviewing
children trying to find out who their mothers and fathers
were. They were watching the mail and spying on houses. There
was no end to their attempts to find someone in violation
of the law.
Even while in prison, H. H. Tracy withheld
information that might convict him. Under date of November
12 of his journal he writes, "Reced letter from Mother
telling me that Emma had been confined on the 7th giving birth
to a daughter named Florence. Mother and child doing well."
Emma was his first wife, so this birth didn't pose any problem
in letting it be known.
However, Henry does not mention the fact
that eleven days later, on November 18, 1886, another baby
girl was born to him by his second wife, Mary Jane. Such evidence
could be incriminating and be held against him if it were
known by the authorities.
In a December 2 entry he noted, "Emma
able to get around but not out yet. Both mothers doing well."
A second mother is noted, but not enough divulged here to
hurt anyone.
Finally out of prison Henry recorded under
date of January 14, 1887, "Took Emma's youngest daughter
to fast meeting and had her blessed by Bro. Joyce. (Name Florence
Angela.)"
While Henry was still in prison, Laura
Ann, the daughter of Mary Jane, the second wife was blessed
by Hans Madsen. Both blessings could have waited until Henry
was out of prison. Usually a father anticipates the privilege
of giving a name and a blessing to his new-born baby. But
Henry did not perform a rite that he would ordinarily do because
of the fear of indicating his paternity.
The haunting nature of Judge Powers final words
Always ringing in Henry's ears was Judge
Powers final declaration: "If his conduct does not conform
to the requirements of law he can be called into Court and
the suspended sentence brought down on his head at any time."
So the three children Henry fathered by
his polygamous wives after he was released from prison were
"hidden in the bulrushes" so to speak because of
the consequences that might result if their parenthood were
known.
The illnesses that Henry suffered in his
later life, plus the burden continually hanging over his head
while clandestinely meeting with his plural wives and not
being able to provide properly for their and his children's
care eventually took their toll.
Judge Powers in sentencing him to prison
expressed his opinion that Henry had been misled in his religious
beliefs and actions. "Misled?" his descendants ask!
Those supposed erroneous actions caused
the Judge to indicate, "It does seem, indeed, as if the
sins of the parents are visited quite as severely upon the
head of the child as they are upon the parent themselves."
Another interpretation of what Judge Powers
described as "the sins of the parents."
What Judge Powers looked upon as the "sins"
of the parent, in this case, are looked upon by Henry's posterity
as "blessings." The blessings of being born of goodly
parents. The blessings of being taught the principles of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. The blessings of learning of love
and compassion, of faith and good works, along with other
attributes that lead to a noble life while on this earth with
the promise of gaining, "All that the Father hath,"
in the life to come to be reunited with family, friends and
loved ones forever.
What could be Phoebe's future?
What happened to Phoebe, her new-born
and other children? She had married Henry on December 28,
1882. Because the Edmunds Bill to punish polygamists was passed
in March of 1882, this put both of them in a precarious situation.
Phoebe stayed in Ogden for awhile and then went to live with
her parents who had settled in Spanish Fork. After six months
there she returned seldom enjoying the same household with
Henry, but living apart from him at different places. On March
3, 1885, their first child Aaron was born. By then, the Edmunds
Law, after a slow start, was really being enforced. Aaron
was then hidden away in efforts to avoid detection of law
officers in search of plural wives and children. The birth
of a child was a very definite indication of "unlawful
cohabitation." This fact was often reported in the newspapers
as in the following incident:
"As the indictment covered the period
between the 1st of January, 1885, until some time in 1886,
the evidence has plainly been to the effect that cohabitation
had taken place during the period named in the indictment
as the youngest child was born a year later." The accused
was found guilty and given the usual sentence.
Hiding the "evidence" of cohabitation
made for many difficult times and anxious moments as families
moved around in order to conceal the obvious that would send
a man to prison-- or back again in Henry's case, as children
were kept out of sight with identities hidden and relationships
protected from the searching eyes of the marshals.
Always, "hiding, fleeing, secreting
themselves" as Judge Powers told, in order to avoid being
sentenced to prison. Home and Peace! When would they ever
enjoy being at home and in peace?
|
