1: Mr. Taylor where do you live?
I live in Plain City District eight miles from Ogden.
2: How long have you lived there?
I came from Montana in ’74 and I have lived there ever since.
3: You have lived near Ogden–eight miles from Ogden ever since you came from Montana in 1874?
Yes sir.
4: How old are you, Mr. Taylor?
Well sir, I was born in the year ’12. I will be 80 years old the seventh day of next December.
5: Were you a member of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Yes sir, I had.
6: I guess you do not understand my question.
What is that?
7: I said I guessed you did not understand my question.
Perhaps not, for I am a little hard of hearing.
8: I asked you if you were a member of the orignal church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Under the Presidency of Joseph Smith, do you mean?
9: Yes sir.
Yes sir, I was.
10: When did you first become a member of that church?
In 1832 it was that I first joined it. I joined the church in November of that year, in Monroe County, Missouri.
11: Where were you born, Mr. Taylor?
In Warren County, Kentucky. Bowling Green was the county seat.
12: Did you ever live in Jackson County, Missouri?
Yes, sir.
13: When?
I went up to Jackson County in 1833.
14: In 1833 you went to Jackson County, you say?
Yes sir, it was in ’33 that I went up there to Jackson County and landed at at Independece the first Sunday, the tenth day of the month.
15: What month?
In April. The tenth day of April it was that I landed there in Independence on the temple block.
16: Did you know Edward Partridge in Jackson County, Missouri?
I did, sir.
17: You knew him at Independence?
I did sir, for there was a meeting held there on the temple block, and I saw him there at that meeting.
18: What kinds of a meeting was that?
It was a meeting of the branch–the Independence Branch meeting. I joined the branch there. I belonged to the branch there.
19: Do you know what position he held in the church?
Edward Partridge, do you mean? 20:
19: Yes, sir.
Yes sir, I know. He was the Bishop of the church. He was a Bishop in the church.
21: What other officers of the church was there at Independence when you first went there in 1833?
Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and W.W. Phelps were there, and brother Morley Carrol. They were the Bishop’s Council, and they were there. Calvin Beebe was there and George Beebe and John Whitmer and David Whitmer, and all of them.
22: You knew these gentlemen, did you not?
Yes sir, I was acquainted with all of them while I was there.
23: Do you know where Edward Partridge was living in the 1833?
He came to me after the meeting was over, and took me home with him to his house. He had put up a house there, and that was on Sunday he took me home with him, and on Monday morning I commenced working for him.
24: On Monday morning you commenced working for him?
Yes sir, I commenced quarrying rock on the temple lot the next morning, and he showed me where to get the stone to build a chimney to his house, and there was no floor in the house at that time, but it was covered.
25: He asked you to quarry out the stone to build a chimney?
Yes sir, he said he would like me to build his chimney.
for him, and I went to work and did it.
26: Well I don’t know that that is of importance, – I just wanted to know where he lived?
He lived there in that little house he had that had no floor in it.
27: Well where was the house standing?
I think it was on the temple block.
28: It was on the temple block?
I think it was. That is my impression about it, but I would not be positive it, but I think it was on the temple block, or near by the temple block there some where. I couldn’t be positive, but I know that is the recollection I have had of it all the time, and I am pretty positive that it was right there on the temple block.
29: Do you know who purchased the property originally of which the temple block is now a part, – the temple lot I mean?
How is that?
30: Do you know who purchased the land originally, – that is who purchased it in the first place, – the land of which the temple lot in controversy in this suit is now a part?
Well Id no’t know about it. If it is a part of the land that was called the temple block at the time that I was there in Independence it was a part of the land that was purchased by Bishop Partridge. I can’t answer that question though, by saying I know.
31: What do you know if anything about Edward Partridge the Bishop of the original church, purchasing property in Jackson County for the church?
32: You may answer the question?
Now my understanding mind you, was that this property was church property. That was my understanding mind you, but as to who entered the land or who bought it I can’t say.
33: What if anything did Edward Partridge say to you about the character of the property?
Well he took me to the corner stone, or the stone that marked the temple, – He and Morley both took me there, and said that was the place where the temple would be built. That was the first time I ever saw that piece of ground that was called the temple block there in Jackson county, Missouri, and that was on the tenth day of the month of April 1833.
34: Do you know anything about members of the church contributing money for the payment of the purchase price of that land?
35: If you know anything about that you may state what it is?
Well I do know something about it. I know that I contributed some money myself to it. I don’t know though that I can name any other person in particular that did contribute money.
36: That was for the purpose of paying for this land?
Yes sir.
37: In whose hands did you place that money that you contributed?
Bishop Partridges hands.
38: How much did you place in his hands for that purpose?
Thirty dollars was what I put in his hands.
for him, and I went to work and did it.
26: Well I don’t know that that is of importance, I just wanted to know where he lived?
He lived there in that little house he had that had no floor in it.
27: Well where was that house standing?
I think it was on the temple block.
28: It was on the temple block?
I think it was. That is my impression about it, but I would not be positive , but I think it was on the temple block, or near by the temple block there somewhere. I couldn’t be positive, but I know that is the recollection I have had of it all the time, and I am pretty positive that it was right there on the temple block.
29: Do you know who purchased the property originally of which the temple block is now a part, the temple lot I mean?
How is that?
30: Do you know who purchased the land originally, that is who purchased it in the first place, the land of which the temple lot in controversy in this suit is now a part?
Well I don’t know about it. If it is a part of the land that was called the temple block at the time that I was there in Independence it was a part of the land that was purchased by Bishop Partridge. I can’t answer that question though, by saying I know.
31: What do you know if anything about Edward Partridge the Bishop of the original church, purchasing property in Jackson County for the church?
32: You may answer the question?
Now my understanding mind you, was that this property was church property. That was my understanding mind you, but as to who entered the land or who bought it I can’t say.
33: What if anything did Edward Partridge say to you about the character of the property?
Well he took me to the corner stone, or the stone that marked the temple. He and Morley both took me there, and said that was the place where the temple would be built. That was the first time I ever saw that piece of ground that was called the temple block there in Jackson county, Missouri, and that was on the tenth day of the month of April 1833.
34: Do you know anything about members of the church contributing money for the payment of the purchase price of that land?
35: If you know anything about that you may state what it is?
Well I do know something about it. I know that I contributed some money myself to it. I don’t know though that I can name any other person in particular that did contribute money.
36: That was for the purpose of paying for this land?
Yes sir.
37: In whose hands did you place that money that you contributed?
Bishop Partridge’s hands.
38: How much did you place in his hands for that purpose?
Thirty dollars was what I put in his hands.
39: You may state now if you know whether other parties contributed to this fund for this purpose, and whether or not Partridge had a large amount of money that had been contributed by members of the church?
I could not say that I know anything about that.
40: Well did he have a large amount of money?
He had a lot of money there, but who contributed it I couldn’t say. I know that I contributed thirty dollars, but who contributed the rest I couldn’t say for I don’t know. I might go a little further and say it was my understanding that there was money put into his hands for the purchasing of lands, and I was to have a deed, – he promised me a deed, – to make out a deed for my inheritance in the land it was as I supposed and I supposed the deed
41: Now what is the fact about your having a deed, or to have a deed the same as all the other members of the church who contributed the money?
My understanding was that I was to have a deed for the land that was to come to me, from him, and that all the other members of the church were to have deeds, that would settle on the land were to have deeds. They were to get these deeds from Edward Partridge, but I understood all the time that the land was the churche’s land, and did not belong to him, although it must have been in his name or he could not have made the deeds as he agreed to do. Now I do not know that to be a fact, but that is my understanding that they were all to get deeds for their inheritence.
42: Now what do you know about this land being bought with church funds, or with Partridge’s own individual money?
Yes sir, that was my understanding that that land was bought with the money of the church. There were some people that came there that did not consecrate their substance to the good of the church, but went ahead and bought land on their own account, – speculators you might call them. They brought money there for the purpose of speculating with it and purchasing land, and did purchase land, for they knew of this revelation regarding the temple and they knew that there would be a great many people come in there and the country would be quickly settled up and there would be a good town there, and the land would raise a good deal in value so the came there with their money for the purpose of speculating and bought land with it. There was a few, not many that went up there for that purpose, but of course they had a right to to it if they saw fit to do so.
43: Now it is so long since you commenced you answer I don’t know where you have answered my question or whether you understood it. The question was, what you knew, if anything about the land there that you saw was sub-divided into these lots you have been testifying about, being purchased with church funds, or with Edward Partridges own individual money?
Well I could not say as to that, but I presume according to the
understanding I had it was purchased with church money, because he told me he cut his money what he had, – I think it was ten thousand dollars that he said he was worth when he came into the church and he told me that he had put it in. He was a hatter by trade, and he was worth considerabme money when he came into the church.
44: Was it or was it not a fact, that the members of the church who came there and located, were expected under the rules of the church to consecrate their property, or part of it to the church for church purposes?
Yes sir, that was the understanding.
45: They were expected to contribute a portion of their property by way of consecration to the church?
Yes sir.
46: For church purposes?
Yes sir.
47: Now what were those church purposes if you know, – what was the object and purpose of contributing this to the church if you know?
Purchase lands. That was my understanding.
48: Now you said I believe that, – First I will ask you if you saw the church funds at any time?
Well he showed me the chest thy money was in.
49: Who showed you that?
Bishop Partridge. He showed me the chest he kept the money in, and I saw him take money out of it and I saw him put money in it too.
50: I will ask you if you were at Far West in Caldwell County, Missouri, at the time the church was there?
Yes sir I was.
51: Where did you go from there?
I went out of the state.
52: Where did you go to?
I am not sure whether it was in Adams county, or in Hancock county. I am not sure which county it was in fot it was just near the line where I was. It was five miles above Lima, and that was in Adams county eight miles below Warsaw. That was where I stopped.
53: Wawsaw, Illinois?
Yes sir.
54: Well where did you go next?
To Nauvoo.
55: What time did you go to Nauvoo?
It was about ’40 (1840) if I mistake not. I think it was about forty that I went there.
56: Now what position, – first I will ask you if you held any position in the reorganized church?
Yes sir. In the reorganized church did you say?
57: In the original church?
Yes sir, I held the position as teacher.
58: You held the position or office of a teacher in the original church?
Yes sir.
59: For how long?
From September 1832 until Josephs death in 1844.
60: What did you do, if any thing, in the way of perform- the duties of the office of teacher from the time you went to Nauvoo until 1844?
We had our bonds set off for us, – two teachers to each ward to look after the members of the ward, to see that no evil speaking or back, biting, or no iniquity was practiced, and to see that all members of the church did their duties. That was our mission to teach and instruct them from the book of covenants and book of Mormon and the new testament. I might say one word more in addition to what I have stated, we were to go from house to house, and visit every house.
61: Well in the performance of your duty as teacher, what did you teach the people in your ward?
To turn to prayers was one thing. We taught them to attend to their prayers, and to see to it and watch that there was no iniquity or back biting or evil speaking, and if they had any hardness towards each other to inquire into it and find out if there was any such hardness, and if there was any trouble like that to go to-work and get the parties together, and have them settle it by arbitration.
62: Well what your duties in case you found any body with more than one wife?
To report them.
63: Report them to whom?
To report them to the President of the Teachers Quorom.
64: How many was there in that Quorom?
There was twenty four in that quorom. It was an organized quorom, and our instructions were if we found any case of that kind to report it to the President of the Teachers Quorom, and the President was to report them tho the brother Hyrum Smith, and that was the instructions brother Hyrum gave in the quorom. We were not to report these alone but any other misdemeanor that we would find in our wards, and they were all reported alike to the President of the quorom who inin turn reported them to brother Hyrum. Now remember I do not mean to say that thee was any such a thing as polygamy being taught at that time or practiced for that matter for it was about that time that John C. Bennetts secret wife system came to be heard of, and it was rumored around that there was such a thing as that and that was the reason that the instructions were given us, for we were-told to search it out and find out what there was to it if we could. That was the way it was, and so I got after him. That was the way it was, and so I got after him and followed and saw him and saw him go into a house that did not have a very good reputation.
65: How was that?
I followed him to that house there in Nauvoo where it was said that this thing, – this secret wife system was practiced, and saw him go into it, but he was pretty cunning and never would go to the house, or enter it until it was dark. He use to go there with the saddle bags on his arm. He had a white linen coat and and white pants, and he was said to be a doctor, and he was going around treating people, –
66: Who was that?
The man that was called Dr John C. Bennett. He said he was a doctor and would go around treating people for one thing and another, and he would go into these houses, where the women were, and those women that were in them were suspicious women that did not bear good characters, for they could not get out into female society there in Nauvoo, although the attempted to do so. They wanted to get into the female society there but didn’t do it on account of their not being good characters for they were not considered good characters at all and did not bear good characters. Well I heard about this and that he visited these houses, and so I went around to watch him and see if I could catch him going there and so I hot into a crab apple patch, – well now shall I tell this out?
67: Yes sir, – tell it right out?
Well I got into this crab apple patch that was there, and I couldn’t hide myself very well there, – that is I couldn’t hide very well any where else, and as I wanted to see all that was going on. I saw him coming and I watched him, and just before he got the house he would look this way and that way and the other way, and the woman that was there was watching him, I thought to see what he was doing, but he did not see me and I watched him until I saw him step right into the house.
68: I will ask you now Mr Taylor whether during that time you were a teacher from 1832 up to 1844, there was any rule or law of the original church that promoted the practices or principle of polygamy? And state what it was, if there was any such law?
May I go back to Jackson County?
69: Go any where from the time you were selected as a teacher in 1832 down to 1844?
Well all right the. If you give me that liberty then I will do it well I went about there for three or four weeks visiting and teaching.
70: Was that at Independence?
Yes sir, -I went about visiting and teaching the people, and visiting all the houses I saw. I went to a man by the name of Claudious Hendricks, and there was a woman living in his house, and I felt as though there was something wrong about it, although I had no evidence, -that is no proof.-
71: Well wait, that is not answering my question? By E.L. Kelley,-
72: Well let him go on and answer the question. Let the witness go on and answer it as he wants to. They want it, and let them have it, for we have nothing to conceal, and we wnt the truth to come out all of it let it strike whom it may. Go right on and finish your answer?
Well I’ll do it. There was a man, -this woman’s husband was an elder, and he was sent here on a mission, and she stayed there at Hendricks place, and he went and got her with a child, the same as old David did Uriah’s wife,- He got her with child while her husband was gone, and he was brought up and cut off from the church for it.
73: I will ask you now Mr. Taylor whether during the time you were a teacher from 1832 up to 1844, there was any rule or law of the original church, that permitted the practice or principle of polygamy and state what it was if there was any such a law? Now that is the question I asked you some time ago, and which you failed to answer?
No sir.
74: Do or did you know of any such a law in the church?
There was no such a law I am sure, -at any rate if there was I did not know anything about it.
75: Mr Taylor I believe you stated you knew where Mr Edward Partridge lived in Independence Missouri?
Yes sir, I did.
76: And I believe you also sated that you got the rock or stone to build the chimney to his house from the quarry on the teple blcok?
Yes sir, I quarried rock for the chimney.
77: Did you quarry it on the temple block?
Yes sir I think it was on the temple block. Yes sir it was on the temple block.
78: You are positive that Edward Partridge lived on the temple block at the time?
I think he did. I think also the house in which the meetings were held was on it too. I think that both were on it, and they were too unless I am greatly mistaken. There was two houses there and I am positive almost that both of them were on it.
79: Do you know where the Lexington road was located there?
Yes sir I think I do.
80: Well where was it located?
Well I don’t know as I can describe
81: Well describe about where it was?
Well I can’t do it for my recollection isn’t as good as it was, – It is not as good as it moght be you know, and it has been a great many years since that time, – sixty yaers ago almost and that is a long time for a: person to remember a thing like that, but then I was there I knew where all the roads were but I suppose it is all changed now.
82: Well was the temple block near the Lexington road, as nearly as you can remember?
It was not far away from it, but I can’t ell you how far it was away from it.
83: How far was it from the Lexington road that you quarried this rock for the chimney that you spoke of?
I couldn’t tell you that neither for I never measured it, and I don’t know.
84: Well have you and idea?
No sir I don’t know that I could even makv a guess at it. I don’t know sir that I have an idea in regard to that sir. You are asking me these question sir, and you must remember one thing that this has been a great many years ago. It has been a great many years since I was there, and my recollection is not so good as it was once on these things, – not so good as it was when I was middle aged.
85: Which side of the Lexington road was this quarry on.
Well I think it was north of it. I think the road was north of ir, – I think the road was north of the temple block, or north of where it was.
86: You think the road was north of wherv the temple block was you say?
Yes sir. That is my impression, but still I would not be positive. I think it was north, but as I say I wouldn’t be positive about it for I am a little careful about how I make my statements, and what I know I state positively and what I am not positive about I do not state positively.
87: Well how far from the Court house in Independence block is this temple block I have been talking about, – about which you have been testifying?
Well it was not far from the Court house, but I couldn’t tell you the distance exactly.
88: Can you approximate the distance it was from the Court house?
No sir I don’t wish to go into it at all, – that is to state how far it was, for I can’t do it, any further than to say it was not far. I merely state to you that I was on the ground, and that I was led to the corner stone, and saw the corner stone. The stone was up above the ground that marked the place where the temple was to be, and I saw it myself with these eyes you see me have now.
89: Was the distance about as far from the Court house to the place where you quarried rock as it was from the Lexington road?
I couldn’t say.
90: Well was it about as far, – about as far from the Court house to the place where you quarried rock, as it was to the Lexington road, – was the place to where you quarried the rock about that far from the court house?
I tell you I couldn’t say positively.
91: Well can’t you say something about it?
I do say something about it. I say I don’t know, and I don’t else I would tell you.
92: You can’t remember is that it?
Yes sir, – I can’t remember, and I never measured it. I would not under take to say what it was without knowing, and I don’t know. I can say however, that was on the temple block, – I can say that, for I was there.
93: Do you think the place where you quarried the rock was inside the temple block?
My understanding was that it was fifty acres. That was my understanding that there was fifty acres inside the block or lot.
94: But I am talking about the distance from the Court house?
Well I don’t know for I never was at the court house. I was young at that time, and I went away a short time after that. I was there only a little while, and then I went down on Blue, – on the Blue it was called.
95: Well do you say it was within a block of the Court house this corner stone that you say you saw there?
That was called the temple block.
96: Well do you say it the courthouse was within a block of this corner stone?
No sir I have told you that I would not undertake to tell you how far it was from there to court house, but it was not far, – that is my recollection now. I would not undertake to state the distance sir, I have told you that, for I don’t know.
97: Well do you think it was a block, or more than a block from the place where you quarried this rock to the corner stone, – the corner stone of the temple block?
I don’t wish to say anything about that for I don’t know. I know that it was not far from the court house, although I never was at it. The place where I quarried the rock was not a great ways from the court house, but how far it was I can’t say.
98: As a matter of fact, Mr Taylor, do you know where the property is that is in litigation in this suit?
I do sir. I was on the ground. I stood there on the ground and Bishop Partridge showed me where it was, and I quarried rock there on that ground too, and Bishop Partridge showed me the place where it was, – that is the ground that had been dedicated for the temple, and that stone was put there to mark the place as a land mark – as I understood from both him and Morley. They both told me that together.
99: Did he tell you that the whole fifty acres was the temple block? Did he tell you that?
What is that? At this point in the taking of the deposition of this witness, upon the reading over to the witness of the shorthand notes of his testimony upon the request of the parties hereto, the reading of said witnesses evidence was continued until the hour of half past one o’clock in the afternoon. This quotation being made upon request of counsel for the defendants.
100: Did he tell you that the whole fifty acres was the temple block?
Well that is my understanding, that there was fifty acres of ground there laid off there for the temple block. Now I don’t know how it was, but that was my understanding of it from what they told me.
101: Are you positive as to that?
I am pretty certain of that, but I might possibly be mistaken, but at any rate that was my understanding of what they told me. I can’t remember now what they said, – the exact language that they used forit was so long ago, but that is my understanding of it.
102: I would like to ask Mr Taylor where he lived before he moved to Jackson county, Missouri?
103: Very well. I have just a few questions to ask Mr Taylor, and we will try and not trespass on your patience any further in this respect. Mr Taylor where did you – live prior to the time you moved to Jackson county, Missouri?
I was not of age at the time but lived with my father in Monroe County, Missouri. I was under age and had to stay with my father until he gave me freedom, and he gave me one year.
104: Then you lived with your father in Monroe County, Missouri prior to the time you came to Jackson county.
Yes sir.
105: How old were you when you lived in Jackson County, Missouri?
I was in my twenty second year.
106: Now you stated in your direct examination that you gave Edward Partridge thirty dollars.
I did sir.
107: For the purpose of buying the temple lot?
For the purpose of purchasing lands, mind you.
108: Then you never gave one dollar to Edward Partridge for the purpose of buying the temple lot?
No sir.
109: It is a fact that not a dollar of your money was contributed for that purpose?
No sir, not to purchase that temple lot, for it had been purchased before I got there. It went, – the money that I gave him, – when to purchase other land, or using it for what ever purpose he saw fir to use it for. Now that was the way I put it in sir. The money was not mine any longe of course after I gave it to him, but I was to get land for it.
110: I believe you stated that Edward Partridge had about ten thousand dollars of his own money at that time?
No sir. That was my understanding, but it was not at that time. It was when he came into the church mind you. Understand me to say that when he came into the church he had about that amount, for he was a man in good circumstances.
111: You do not know, or do you know of your own positive knowledge, whether or not he had used his money for the purpose of purchasing property there in Independence?
No sir.
112: You don’t know anything about that?
No sir I don’t know who purchased the land or entered it, or anything about it at all.
113: That was your understanding you say, but you did not know anything about it of your own knowledge?
It was stated to me it church property. Now I had that statement from Bishop Partridge personally, and you can call it personal knowledge if you wish. He told me it was church property, and had been purchased for the church, and was dedicated as church property, and aside from what he told me I know it was said to be church property. Now it might have been in his own name, – I can’t say as to that because when I asked him for a deed, – I mean when he proposed to give me a deed, I suppose of course it was in his name because he offered to make me a deed, and he couldn’t do that unless it was in his own name. He couldn’t have made me a deed if it had been entered in some body elses name.
114: No you spoke something about seeing money in a chest. Do you
know of your own knowledge who contributed that money that you saw in that chest?
I couldn’t say anything about that, for I don’t know anything about it.
115: You don’t know anything about that?
No sir.
116: You don’t know whether it was Edward Partridges money, or church money?
No sir.
117: And you did not asertain anything about that, – that is whether it was Edward Partridges money or church money?
No sir I did not inquire about that for it was none of my business. I attend to my own business and I let every man attend to his, – that is the way I try to live.
118: Then it is a fact that you do not know whether that money that you saw you saw Edward Partridge have in that chest was his own money or money that belonged to the church. Am I correct when I say that is what I understood you to say?
I suppose it was the churches money, for he called it the “Lord’s store-house”, – all the store-house he had. A little “store-house in the church”, – they used that name, and he said that was the Lord’s store house.
119: Do you state that as your knowledge of the facts, or as your understanding?
Well, – it is my understanding sir, and that is what he said to me, and you can call it the churches money or whatever you please. He said it was the Lord’s store house, and I concluded from that that it was the money of the church. He pointed it out to me and said “there is our money in that trunk. He pointed it out and showed it to me, and I saw him take money out and showed it to me, and I saw him take money out of the truck, but what use he put it too of course I don’t know. Now that is what I know about it, – I saw him take money out of that trunk or chest, and I saw him put money in it too.
120: You spoke or referred in your examination in chief to consecrating property, and you also referred to some that came there to speculate?
Speculate?
121: Yes sir?
Well now, –
122: Well now wait until I get through with my question. Did the majority of the members of the church consecrate their property in fact?
I think they did.
123: You “think they did”
Yes sir, and a good large majority too.
124: Were they organized under that law of consecration and all things in common?
No sir. “All things in common”? That was not in it sir, and has nothing to do with it, for we never believed in having all things in common at all.
125: That was not a part of your belief, – having all things in common?
No sir.
126: But you had what you call the law of consecration?
Yes sir to consecrate all above what your needs are, – all above your needs or support mind you now.
127: To the Lord’s store house?
To Bishop Partridge.
128: But these individuals that you refer to that came their to speculate, did they also observe this law?
There was some few men came there with money, and bought up a lot of land to speculate on it. There was a good many people coming in there and some of these individuals came there with money and bought land to speculate in it for there was the probability of a rise in the value of land around there on account of the numbers that were gathering there and there was a few, – not a great many, – that bought up some two hundred or three hundred acres of land each and some of them more than that, and they did not consecrate it. Now what we called “consecrate”, was to consecrate it to the church all above what a man needed for his support, and that was not compulsory, – There was no –
thing about it at all, for no man was compelled to do it. If he did it was voluntary on his part and not compulsory.
129: Do you understand that was the law of the church at that time?
I understand that was the command or law, – all above a man needs he was to consecrate, – or should consecrate – remember that, all they had above their needs for their support. If they had more money than they needed that was put in. Remember that was not compulsory on any one though.
130: Now you stated that at one time you watched John C. Bennett go into a house that some females lived in?
Yes sir.
131: You said you watched him and saw him go into a house that some females lived in that had a very bad reputation?
Yes sir.
132: Did you report that to the authorities?
133: Did you report that fact to the authorities?
What I had seen?
134: Yes sir?
I did sir when I had caught him.
135: Can you state about what year that was?
If you will let me go on I will tell you a little more.
136: Well I would like to get the year first, if you can state it?
All right sir.
137: Well if you can state what year that was you may do so?
Well that was in the year of 1842 I think sir, if I mistake not.
138: Can you state about what time in the year it was that this happened?
It was some time along in the latter part of the season.
139: It was some time in the latter part of the year?
Yes sir. Now I will tell you about that, – they build an ill fame house there, –
140: Who built it?
John C. Bennett and a lot of them built an ill fame house there near the temple, and there was a meeting ground in the oak grove near by there, and they put up an ill fame house right by there, and after they had put it up, John C. Bennett and the Fosters, – I did know pretty near all their names at one time, but my memory is treacherous now, and I can’t remember names like I once could for that reason. At any rate of this ill fame house that was built there John C. Bennett was the head man of it, and after they got it built they wrote on it in large letters what it was for, – an ill fame house, and the sign that they put on it proclaimed what it was, and what it was there for, but I don’t remember just what the inscription or sign was that they put on it. Well when we went to go to meeting we could not get there, – that is we couldn’t get to meeting without passing this house there looking right at it, for it was close to the meetings grounds, and a thousand or two thousand would go there to meeting on a sabbath day, and they didn’t feel very good seeing that house there with these great big capital letters right there facing them when they would look at it. Well that house was built right there close there to the temple and the meeting ground, for it was right on the same street but a little north of the temple, and I lived just a little north of it too, right on the same street.
Well the city council held a counsel over it, and they considered it was a nuisance to the city, and they so declared it to be a nuisance. They considered that house was a nuisance, and the authorities passed an ordinance against it, and notified them to move the nuisance ouside of the city limits, and gave them time sufficient to do so. Well they paid no attention to that order for they did not feel inclined to obey it and they did not move it. They had some furniture in it, – not much, – and the police gathered around and one of the policemen went to go in to move some of the furniture, or some things that were in it out, and John Eagle, – a man by the name of Eagle, – a tall raw boned stout man that weighed over two hundred pounds, – they called him “Bully, and he was a bully to look at him, – he hit the policeman and knocked him down, and Joseph Smith took him by here (indicating the seat of his breeches and the nape of his neck), – he took him by the breeches there and here, and he pitched him right out, and “that is the way we do away down east” said Joseph, and that settled it. Well they went in then and took the building and put it on rollers, and there was a deep gulley there and they pitched the house in it, – they just rolled the house off and tipped it over in this gulley shingles and all, – down it all went into that gulley, and that was the end of the transaction. That was the end of that bad house, fot I called it a bad house, and it was right there defore the meeting ground almost or right close to it any how.
141: Well now although that long answer is not responsive to the question I asked you, still I will not move to have it stricken out like you did yesterday Mr Kelley with some things that did not suit you. Well now after you reported John C. Bennett to the authorities do you – know that any action was taken on his case?
Yes sir there was.
142: Well what was the action?
He was cut off from the church.
143: For that offence?
Joseph Smith got on the stand and called him “John C. Skunk Bennett”, – that was the name he gave him, – “Skunk”.
144: Well now what time was that?
That was at the time or about the time that he wss cut off.
145: You mean that was the time Joseph applied the term to him you have stated here?
Yes sir.
146: Well what year was it?
That was about 1842.
147: What time in 1842 was it?
I would not be positive but I think it was in the latter part of 1842, – but I would not be right positive to that you know. That is the test of my recollection about it though.
148: It was in the latter part of 1842 then?
I would not be right positive as to the week or month, but it was right along about that time some where.
149: You think it was in the latter part of 1842?
Yes sir, according to the best of my remembrance that was when it was.
150: Well now had you discovered anything in the conduct of John C. Bennett or in his actions to report?
I told you that I had been on the watch before it. I told you I had traced him to these houses before that.
151: Before what?
Before I reported him.
152: How long before you reported him?
Well it was not a great while, – now it was not long. It was called “the secret wife doctrine”, and he was the head boss of the secret wife, or plural wife doctrine too I suppose.
153: Now you have just spoken of John C. Bennett
tem or secret wife doctrine?
Yes sir, that is what it was called.
154: It was called that there in Nauvoo at that time?
Yes sir.
155: Now then when did you first hear that referred to or spoken about there in Nauvoo?
Well it was not long before the time that he was cut off from the church.
156: Well about how long before that, did you first hear it spoken of?
It was only a little while before he was cut off. It was not long before because the church did not tolerate such things at that time, when it was known. It was a great while before he was cut off.
157: After he was cut off?
No sir, – before he was cut off. That is what I told you before. What is the use of being sked these same questions over and over again.
158: When I understand you questions, – your answers Mr Taylor and hear them plainly I will not repeat them, if you have answered my questions. Now I will ask you if after John C. Bennett was cut off from the church did you hear anything there in Nauvoo about this secret wife system or polygamy being practiced there by any one?
No sir there was no polygamy. There was no talk of polygamy talked of there at that time, – that is by the authorities you understand me, – that is what I say, – no talk of any kind about that by the authorities, – none at all. Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith never taught polygamy, and there was no revelation on polygamy that I ever say, – no law or revelation on polygamy or celestial marriage or anything of the kind and the church was governed entirely a monogamy church from ’32 at the time I embraced the work up to – the time of Josephs death.
159: Are you through with your answer?
Yes sir.
160: Well now please pay attention to my question, – My question is not with reference to Joseph Hyrum Smith or what they taught, but my question is, was there any talk by any one about that doctrine of plural marriage or polygamy as it is commonly called?
Yes sir.
161: There was?
Yes sir.
162: By whom?
A man by the name of Brown taught that doctrine.
163: What was done with him?
And he was notified and cut off from the church.
164: You know that to be the fact?
Yes sir that man by the name of Brown taught that and he was cut off from the church, and there was another man by the name of Durfy went out to Layhart and he told the people there he thought the time would come when they would practice polygamy, or the same doctrine in reference to plural wives, that David and Solomon did. That is what this man named Durfy taught, and there was a man by the name of Hewitt heard it, and he came right straight to Nauvoo, and he went to see Hyrum about it, and he told Hyrum what this man was teaching or preaching, and Hyrum sat right down on the well curb and wrote a notice to him that such a doctrine wouldn’t do to be taught in the church, and he wrote to him, – I know that for I saw the letter after he wrote it, Mr. Hewitt read it to me.
165: You saw that letter you say?
Yes sir, I saw that letter, and it was a severe rebuke, – a severe rebuke.
166: Did you ever see that letter published in the Times and Seasons?
I couldn’t say, but it seems to me though as if I had seen it, but I wouldn’t be right positive, but I saw the letter and brother Hewwitt read the letter to me.
Times and Seasons?
I think I can.
168: You think you could identify it?
Yes sir I think I can. His name would identify it I think. I think I could tell it.
169: Have you your glasses so you can read?
You read it yourself.
170: Well I would rather you would read it if you can?
Well I will tell you, – I am a poor reader, and I don’t know that I can read it.
171: Well I will read this over to you, and I would like you to state if you recognize it, – it is as follows, – “To the brethern of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints living on China Creek in Hancock County, Greeting; – Whereas brother Richard Hewitt has called on me today, to know my views concerning some doctrines that are preached in your place, and states to me that some of your elders say that a man having a certain priest hood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here; I say unto you that that man teached false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here. And any man that is found teaching privately or publicly any such doctrine, culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before the High council and lose his license and membership also; therefore he had better beware what he is about. And again I say unto you that an elder has no business to undertake to preach mysteries in any part of the world, for God has commanded us all to preach nothing but the first principles unto the world. Neither has any elder any authority to preach any mysterious thing to any branch of the church, unless he has a direct commandment from God to do so. Let the matter of the grand councils of heaven, and the making og Gods, worlds and devils entirely alone; for you are not called to teach any such doctrine – – for neither you nor the people are capacitated to understand any such principles – – less so to teach them For when God commands men to teach such principles the saints will receive them. Therefore beware what you teach, for the mysteries of God are not given to all men; and unto those to whom they are given they are placed under restrictions to impart only such as God will command them; and the residue is to be kept in a faithful breast, other wise he shall be brought under condemnation. By this God will prove his faithful servants, who will be called, and numbered with the church. And as to the celestial glory, all will enter in and possess that kingdom that obey the gosmel; and continue in faith in the Lord unto the end of his days. I say unto you, you must cease preaching your miraculous things, and let the mysteries alone until by and bye. Preach faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism for the remission of sins; the laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; teaching the necessity of strict obedience unto these principles; reasoning out of the Scriptures; proving them unto the people. Cease you schism and divisions and your contentions. Humble yourselves as in dust and ashes, lest God should make you an ensample of his wrath unto the surrounding world. Amen. In the bond of the everlasting covenant, I am your obedient servant Hyrum Smith.” Now that is the letter is it not, and it dates at Nauvoo, March 15th 1844?
That is the purport of it.
172: Well you recognize that don’t you as the letter you referred to?
Yes sir I recognize the language of it, but I did not think as the time he read it to me that that there was so much of it as there is there. I did not think there was anything like as much of it as there is. It has been a good while ago, – almost fifty years ago, and that is a long time to remember these things you know.
173: Well you recognize it do you not as being the letter?
I recognize some of the language. It sounds something like it. I recognize the language, but it seems to me that there has been something added on to it, – I will say considerable added on to it more than what he read to me. What he read to me there that day was a letter written by Hyrum as he was sitting there on the well curb so brother Hewitt told me, and it was just on a little bit of paper, and I don’t believe that all that could have been written on such a little piece of paper as he had. It seems to me that there is something added on to it more than there was at the time he read it to me. Something to me as if there was double or thrible as much as there was at the time he read it to me.
174: You cannot identify that letter then as being the letter that Mr Hewitt has on that occasion?
No sir, not all of it, for there is a good many things in there that I don’t remember, and there seems to be so much more of it. Don’t understand me as identifying it, for I don’t , but still there are things in there that sound like it. There is things in there that I can’t identify, and I don’t see how all that could be put on the paper that he had there for it was only a small piece of paper that he had, and I don’t think all of that could have been on it. Now I did not see Hyrum write it but brother Hewitt told me that Hyrum sat right down on the well curb and wrote it, and he came over to where I was after he got the letter and read it to me.
175: What was Mr Hewitt’s name?
His name was Richard Hewitt.
176: And you say you did not see him write the letter?
No sir.
177: You did not see Hyrum write the letter you say?
No sir I didn’t.
178: Then how do you know he wrote it?
Hewitt told me he wrote it. Hewitt was there and saw him write it, and he told me that Hyrum wrote it, on the well curb.
179: Now not having seen him write the letter then you cannot say of your own knowledge that Hyrum Smith did write it?
Oh no sir, not positively, but this man that told me was a number one man a truthful man, and he would not tell me anything that was not so, and I could depend on everything he told me.
180: Well what I want to asertain from you is simply if you knew it of your own knowledge, or whether it was simply a matter of hearsay.
No sir of course I don’t know it of my own knowledge, for I did not see brother Hyrum write it, but nevertheless what brother Hewitt told me I believe to be the truth or he would not have told me what he did.
181: Now Mr Taylor in your cross examination you were asked about this letter?
Yes sir.
182: What letter do you refer to?
The letter that Hyrum Smith wrote and delivered to Mr Hewitt to take to these brethern out at the place where this man was preaching this doctrine, or telling the people that the doctrine of plural marriage would some time soon be taught in the church.
183: Well never mind that, – Now did you see this letter at the time it was read to you?
No sir it was some time after that.
184: Well I mean at the time it was read to you did you see it?
I did see the letter.
185: Did you see the hand writing?
Yes sir, I saw the handwriting, but I did not read it.
186: Well how as the letter read, if you did not read it.
He read the letter.
187: Who read the letter?
Hewitt did.
188: And you saw the writing?
Yes sir I saw the writing the same as if you had a letter open there and I could see it. I saw the writing when Hewitt was reading it to me. I did not read it though at all, for Hewitt read it to.
189: What was the full name of the man that read the letter to you?
Richard Hewitt.
190: Whose handwriting was the letter in, if you know?
I could not say.
191: You don’t know whose hand writing the letter was in?
NO sir for I did not see it written abut Hewitt said it was in Hyrum Smith’s hand writing. He told me that Hyrum Smith wrote and gave it to him.
192: Now I will ask you two or three questions that will not be re-examination, and I will ask them as a part of your direct examination. I will ask you Mr Taylor if you were acquainted when you went in Far West, Missouri, with a man by the name of E.G. Gates?
Gates?
193: Yes sir, – Gates, – E.G. Gates? Were you acquainted with a man by that name when you were Far West, Missouri?
Yes sir, – that is I was partially acquainted with him. I knew him by that name.
194: Where did he live?
In the city, – in Nauvoo.
195: No that is not it. Where did he live when you knew him in Missouri?
Where did I live in Missouri?
196: No, where did Gates live at that time you knew him in Missouri?
I don’t know what you mean sir.
197: I asked you if you knew a man by the name of Gates, – E.G. Gates when you were residing at Far West Missouri, and you answered that you were acquainted with a man by that name.
No sir, that was a mistake, – it was at Nauvoo that I knew that man.
198: Did you know him when he lived at Far West Missouri before he went to Nauvoo?
Yes sir, I saw him there.
199: Well that is what I want to know?
I saw him there, yes sir.
200: Did you know Elias Higbee in Far West Missouri?
I did sir. I was well acquainted with him, for I knew him when he lived in Jackson County, Missouri, and worked for him there. I made eighteen hundred rails for him there.
201: What official position did he hold in the state of Missouri?
He was Judge of the County Court in Caldwell County, Missouri.
202: Who was Judge of the county court in Caldwell County, Missouri?
Elias Higbee.
203: Did Edward Partridge live there at the same time?
Yes sir.
204: What time was that?
That was in, – well it was just before they moved in ’38. It was in ’36 or ’37, – some where along there.
205: Well was that before they moved, – you say that was just before they moved, – moved from where?
From Far West.
206: Well what year did they move in ’38 or’39?
In ’38 and some in ’39. That is in the spring of ’39, – I went in ’39 myself I remember, but a good many of them went out of ’38.
207: Where did Edward Partridge go from Caldwell County, Missouri?
To Quincy.
208: To Quincy, Illinois?
Yes sir.
209: Where did he die?
In Quincy.
210: In what state is that?
In Illinois.
211: In what year?
Do you want to know what year it was that Bishop Partridge died?
212: Yes sir?
I can’t remember the year. I can’t remember now what year it was, but it was not very long after we were driven out of Missouri. It was a very little while after that, I remember that my father died about the same time, and Father Smith died also about that time, – they all died about the same time, – all three of them.
213: Well what time did your father die?
He died in the fall of ’39.
214: What time in the year did they leave, – did Partridge leave Caldwell County, Missouri, if you know?
What time in the year?
215: Yes sir what time in the year, spring, summer fall or winter?
Well probably in the winter or spring some time. I think he was amongst the last to leave and some may have left later than that even. I don’t know how that is very well. I couldn’t say what time exactly he left, but I think it was in the spring. I know I left there in the spring.
216: Well I am just asking about Edward Partridge alone, – what time did he leave there?
Well now I couldn’t say exactly what time he did leave there. I just stated that he left there in the spring, but I believe I was mistaken about that, for it seems to me it was in the winter that he left there. Now that is my impression that he left in the winter, but I would not be right positive about that.
217: What time was it Mr Taylor that you knew this man referred to as E.G. Gates at Far West?
It was there at Far West.
218: Well what year was it?
Well the move from Caldwell County was started in ’36 and it was before that I knew him. Now I wasn’t acquainted with him at Far West, but I knew him by sight while he was there, – that is I knew him when I saw him and knew who he was.
219: Can you state positively that you saw this man Gates there in Far West, Caldwell County Missouri in the month of May 1839?
No sir, I would not make any such a statement for I don’t think I did.
220: Can you state that you saw him in 1839 at any time?
In Far West?
221: Yes sir, or any where else?
I saw him in Far West, for he was there previous to the time that they moved.
222: You are aware of the fact that there was a movement going on commencing in 1838 and continuing into 1839?
Yes sir.
223: Now can you swear positively that you saw him there in 1839 in Far West?
No sir. Now sir you asked me if I saw him there in May 1839 and I say no sir to that question, for it is my impression that he left there before May. Now that is the impression that I have about it, but still it may be possible that he was there in May, but I don’t think he was, for I believe he left before that time.
224: Can you swear positively that you saw Elias Higbee there in 1839?
I can sir. Well hold on there? In ’39? Not in ’39 I guess because Elias Higbee left there, and I knew when he left.
225: When did he leave?
He left directly after the army dispersed, or the mob dispersed, – he left immediately after that. He did not go with his family though. Elias Higbee went first himself to Illinois and then sent for his family.
226: Well what year was that?
That was in 1838.
227: That was in 1838?
Ye sir. It was immediately after the mob dispersed, and that was in ’38.
228: Then you are positive he left there in 1838?
I am, – to the best of my recollection I am.
229: Now you stated that Edward Partridge went to the town of Quincy, Illinois, and died there?
Yes sir.
230: Well, are you positive of that?
I am pretty positive of it.
231: You state it as a fact?
I am pretty positive it is a fact. That is my impression now.
232: Well do you know it as a fact?
Well he was never at Nauvoo. If he had been I would have seen him, but I never saw him there.
233: Do you know about the time that Edward Partridge left Far West?
Not positively, but I think he left right in the winter. That is my impression, because the waggons were coming and going all the time, and of course there was a good deal of confusion, and for me to give the precise date that everything occured, of course. I can’t do it, but this much I will say that he went to Quincy, – Bishop Partridge moved to Quincy and I believe he died there.
234: Could you swear that you saw Edward Partridge in Far West in 1839?
No sir, because I moved from Far West myself in March, when the snow was that deep, and I laid down on the snow, and had my bed on the snow and slept in it, and I am pretty positive it was in March, for it was in March that we had the big snow that year, and it was about the deepest snow of the winter.
235: Do you know about the time in March that you left Far West?
Well it was about the first of March, – some where along there.
236: About the first of March you say you left?
Yes sir some where about that time.
237: Did you leave in March ’39 or ’38?
March ’39 was the time I left, because they were driven, – well now, maybe I am mistaken about that. We had to leave, and they commenced leaving right away after we were ordered to leave. After that they commenced fixing and moving their things away in waggons right away.
238: now do you know of your own positive knowledge whether Elias Higbee left Far West in 1838 or 1839?
I do, it was in 1838 sir that he left John Butler was the name of another man that was, –
239: Well sir never mind that? You have answered the question that will do?
Well he left in ’38.
240: Who left in ’38?
Higbee, – Elias Higbee.
241: Do you know whether he came back from Far West, – to Far West I should say, – do you know whether or not Elias Higbee came back to Far West again after he left that time?
I think not. I don’t know that he ever came back. I don’t think he ever did come back for he sent for his family, – or his family went to him.
242: Do you know of your own knowledge whether he did go back or not?
I don’t think he ever did.
243: Well do you know whether he did or not, – do you know anything about it?
I don’t think he did I say.
244: Well I don’t want what you think about it, – we want what you know? We want to know what you know about it, and not what you think?
Well I don’t believe he ever went back. Now that is my belief about it. He never went back, that is my belief about it, and I am pretty positive in my belief.
245: Can you state the date when Higbee left Far West?
Well if I was permitted to examine the records I might come pretty close to it, but form my recollection I wouldn’t like to state positively the fact when he left there, for I couldn’t do it positively.
246: Suppose the record showed that he left there on the 25th day of March in 1838 in Far West.
Well I didn’t see him there in 1839. If he was there I did not see him. I have no knowledge of his being there if he was.
247: Suppose I say the records shows that he was there on the 25th day of March 1839, can you say in opposition to what the record shows that he was not there?
I did not see him there. I left there in March, mind you, and I did not see him there. I never went back any more after that, and I know while I was there I never saw him back any more after he left. I never saw him after he left Far Waest until I saw him in Nauvoo.
248: Were you there in Far West on the 25th day of March 1839?
I wouldn’t be positive, but I think it was the fore part of March that I left. I know there was snow on the ground, so you may guess it was early in March. At this point an adjournment of the taking of these depositions was taken until the hour of 1:30 o’clock PM of the same day, at which time the further reading of the deposition of this witness was continued from the point there in indicated by question numbered 100 as hereinbefore set forth, and after the completion of the reading of witnesses deposition as before stated, the witness made the following corrections, “Higbee might possibly have gone back to Far West and me not know anything about it. He might possibly have gone back to Far West at the time you stated, and me not know anything about it, for it was a time of great confusion, and we were all busy fixing houses and places for our families, and as I kept no record of these things, what I have stated I have stated just merely from my memory of things that have transpired that I was acquainted with, and he might possibly have gone back and been there at that time. Such a thing might have occurred, and me not know anything about it. Now as regards Bishop Partridge, my recollection is that he died at Quincy, but it is possible he might have died in Nauvoo, and me not know it, but I did not see him there at Nauvoo. By P.P. Kelley,
249: Now what time did you go to Nauvoo, what year?
In the year of 1840.
250: I wish to except to the correction made by the witness of his former testimony, for the reason that it was made several hours after the completion of his testimony.
251: Mr Taylor in your cross examination you referred to the fact of the removal of Elias Higbee’s family from Far West to Nauvoo. I will get you to state now when that occured, and who removed them? If you know?
Oh I could not tell you who moved them. I couldn’t say in regard to that.
252: DI you know whether or not Elias Higbee himself moved them?
Such a thing might be that he moved them. I can’t positively say but that was my understanding that he left, – that was my impression and understanding that he left, and then he might after that have come back and got his family. I couldn’t say in regard to that but such a thing might have be, but it is my understanding that he left before Christmas.
253: Mr Taylor I would like to ask if Edward Partridge or Elias Higbee or E.G. Bates word at Far West at the time you left in March 1839?
I don’t think they were, I don’t hardly think they were. I don’t remember seeing them there, and if they were there I don’t remember anything about it.
254: You think you would have known it if they had been there?
Well, they might have been there, and I did not know it, for at the time I moved from Far West down on what is called Long Creek, about ten or twelve miles from Far West to where my father was, and I was fixing to move, for my father had teams and I had no team, so my father fixed me out with a team.
255: Now at the time, – what time of year was it that you left Far West and went down to your fathers place, – what time of the year was that, and how long before you started for Illinois?
Well I think it was, – well now I think my wife was confined, – well it was about two weeks before I went down to my fathers. I think the child was about two weeks old before or at the time I started for my fathers place.
256: Then as a mattyr of fact you were not at Far West at all in March 1839 but were ten or twelve miles from there, but at your fathers place?
Yes sir. I don’t know exactly the distance it was to my fathers place, but it was down on what was called Long Creek, – it was seven or eight miles, – perhaps further, – or some thing like that.