50 – L.D. Hickey

1: You may state your name to the reporter?
L.D. Hickey.

2: State your age to the reporter also?
I was seven-eight years old last February.

3: Where do you reside Mr Hickey?
In Branch County in the state of Michigan.

4: At what place in branch county?
At the city of Coldwater.

5: How long have you resided there?
Twenty four years this month, – no it will be twenty five years this month since I came there. Yes sir, I think it is twenty five years this this month since I came there to reside.

6: State where you lived before moving there to reside.
Before I came to Coldwater?

7: Yes sir?
It was in Wisconsin.

8: In what part of Wisconsin?
Well I lived in La-Crosse County while I was there, and in Jackson County, as well as La-Crosse, city.

9: State about what years you resided there?
Well you can subtract twenty four or twenty five years form now and that will fetch you to the time I lived there, for I moved directly from there to Coldwater.

10: Well that would bring you back to the year 1867?
Yes sir.

11: How many years did live there?
How is that?

12: How long did you live there?
In Wisconsin?

13: Yes sir?
Well I lived in Wisconsin from 1856 up to this time that I went over to Coldwater, Michigan to live. If I recollect right that was the time that I lived in Wisconsin.

14: Where did you live before living there? Just state the places you have lived?
In Wisconsin?

15: Yes sir, or before you went to Wisconsin, -just state all the places that you have lived during your life?
well I lived on Beaver Island ad the north end of Lake Michigan, and moved from there to Wisconsin.

16: Well you may state when you first moved to Beaver Island?
Well that is hard to say, –

17: As near as you can remember?
Well as I say that is hard to tell for I have not had occasion to figure this thing out, but as near as I can remember now I think I went there in 1849, -either 1848 or 1849,- I would not be positive which of these years it was, but it was either one of them unless I am greatly mistaken.. I have not had occasion to figure that matter out or think it over, but I could tell exactly by my books if I would take time to hunt it up.

18: Where did you live before you moved there?
To Beaver Island. Before I moved there.

19: Yes sir?
In Michigan, in Lapere county.

20: How long did you live there?
Well let me see,-I left Nauvoo in the spring of ?46 if my memory serves me right, and then I went to Michigan and stayed there until I went to Beaver Island. The dates I could give you exactly if I had had any idea you wanted these things, but I will give them to you any way as ear as I can, but of course I can’t be sure of these things unless I have the records to refresh my recollection, and then I could tell you exactly.

21: Well that is near enough/
well I went from Nauvoo to Michigan.

22: State where you lived before you went to Nauvoo?
lived in the town of Oakland County, twenty miles from Detroit in the state of Michigan.

23: How long did you live there?
Well I went into that county probably I think it was in ’37. I went there from York state, and we lived there until I went to Nauvoo.

24: What church, if any, were you a member of at that time?
At what time? When I went to Nauvoo?

25: No, I mean at that place where you were living before you went to Nauvoo, -what church were you a member of at that time and place?
I had been a Methodist before I joined the Mormons, but I went to Nauvoo as a member of that church.

26: The Methodist church?
Nos sir, as a member of the Mormon church.

27: What church do you say when, -what church do you mean, when you say you were a member o the Mormon church, -what church do you refer to, -what name was it known by them?
Well it was the name they have it in its creed, and that was the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. That was the name that it was spoken by, in its creed, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

28: State when you became a member of that church?
I was baptized in the month of February 1842.

29: In 1842 you became a member of that church did you say?
Yes sir.

30: State whether or not you were acquainted with the doctrines of that church?
Yes sir, tolerably well acquainted. on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and the witness has not shown to be competent to answer the question.

31: You may answer the question?
Well I have answered it. Now I would not like to pass on my literary attainments in Mormonism, but I would state to the court that before I joined them I had been very careful in my religious culture, and I assure that I very carefully scanned and examined their doctrines and beliefs before I joined them. Before I embraced Protestantism. I had very carefully examined and criticized Catholicism, and Protestantism pretty well also, before I joined it, but my father said it was the best church and so I joined it.

32: What office, if any, did you hold in the church or Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, before the death of Joseph Smith in 1844?
 

33: What office, if any, did you hold in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
The office of an elder.

34: State whether or not you performed any missionary work as an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I did.

35: Now state whether or not as an Elder you were familiar with the rules and the regulations and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, before the death of Joseph Smith?
Well I could answer that yes or no as the case might be, and answer it truthfully, but without having some latitude in my answer I cannot do so. It would be necessary for me to qualify it for me to answer the way things really were,. For me to say I was not, would be rather contradicting my own knowledge that I have said I was possessed of, and to say I was, would be assuming more than I have any right to assume. While I feel this way, still I feel that possibly I understand how to answer the questions you put to me as well as any body.

36: Well answer the questions in your own way: Don’t pay any attention to the objection of these gentlemen, but answer the questions in your own way?
What was the question?

37: I asked you to state whether or not as an Elder, you were familiar with the regulations and rules of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and its doctrine, at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Well as I stated before I calculated to post myself up in the doctrines of the church, but I did not assume to know all about it. Joseph Smith was shot within two years or a little over after I joined the church, for I joined it in February 1842, and he was shot on the 27th of June 1844, and I do not presume that in that in that short time I understood the whole science of Mormonism in two years and at the same time I do not put myself down in the dunce box as not knowing anything about Mormonism by a good deal.

38: I will ask you to state what you know if anything about the law governing the successorship in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the Prophetic office, or as President of the church?
Well I know what the law says on that subject.

39: Well state what it is?
Yes sir. You have asked me if I understood it, – if I understood the law of the church on the question of succession, and I say most assuredly I understand the law.

40: I will ask you to state, if you can, who was the successor of Joseph Smith in the office of leader and President of the church after the death of Joseph Smith?
As the President?

41: Yes sir, and the prophet of the church?
I do not give my opinion, if the court pleases. I state what I knew about it, – I stated that I knew what the law said on that question.

42: Well state if you can, who was the successor of Joseph Smith after his death in the office of Prophet of the church?
The Court will have to bear with me for I am getting old and a little deaf, – for I can not hear as well as I once could, and I am liable to misunderstand your questions. If I understand what I am asked now the questions is, if I knew who was Mr Smith’s successor?

43: Yes sir, that is the question?
Yes sir I do.

44: Well state who it was?
James J. Strang.

45: I will ask you to state, if you can, how you know that James J. Strang was the successor of Joseph Smith as the prophet and President of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? calls for an opinion of the witness, and it cross examina- tion and not direct examination.
I know it sir.

46: How do you know it?
I know it sir upon the same principle that I know Mr Harrison is President of the United States.

47: Well state how that is?
By critizing the constitution of the church, which made regulations for a successor and how that succes sor shall be appointed and ordained, and this man filled that bill.

48: Will you state to the reporter what that constitution or law is?
Let me understand you. Do you want me to state what the modus operandi was by which he was made President, do you want me to state that from the laws in the books, or simply my understanding of it was.

49: No, – state from the books and law, – give the law and where it came from?
Well that constitution made provision for a successor just as clearly as the constitution of the United States makes provision for the succession in the presidency of the United States That constitution makes provision that Mr Smith was to have appointed that man as his successor as any thing on earth can. Nothing could be clearer accord- in to my way of looking as it. That is my first reason for saying this, and secondly, – he was not to appoint that man untim he was taken, – third, – he was not to have any power except to appoint him, – fourth, – he was to be ordained by angels as Smith was in the first place. Now that is the constitution of that church.

50: That was the way the succession was to be regulated?
Yes sir.

51: Now I will ask you to look at this book exhibit “J” on page one hundred and forty seven, at section forty three, and read the first and second paragraphs of section forty three?
“O hearken ye elders of my church, and give an ear to the words which I shall speak unto you; for behold, verily, verily, I say unto you that yo have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you, to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. And this ye shall know assured- ly, that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me. But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none other shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his staed; and this shall be a law unto you that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations, or commandments, and this I give unto you, that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me. For verily I say unto you , that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained(baptized crossed out) as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.”

52: I will ask you to state Mr. Hickey whether or not this extract you read from exhibit “J”, is what you understood to be the law governing the church before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

52: Why of course it is,-there can be no question of that for here it is in the doctrine and covenants.
 

53: Now I will ask you to read on page one hundred and thirteen in the same exhibit the third paragraph in section twenty six?
“And also with Peter and James and John, whom I have sent until you , by whom I have ordained you, and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I have revealed unto them; unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fullness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all thing, both which are in heaven and which are on earth; and also with all those whom my father hath given me out of the world; wherefore, lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that you may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all you may be able to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins grit about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you, taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I revean (?) unto you, and be agreed as touching all tings what-so-ever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up that where I am ye shall be also, Amen.”

54: I will ask you whether or not that is what you understood to be the law governing the ordination of the successor of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

55: That is what you understood to be the law regulating the appointment and ordination of a successor to Joseph Smith?
yes sir.

56: Now I will ask you to state to the reporter, whether or not James J. Strang was appointed by Joseph Smith to be his successor.
Yes sir, he was.

57: I will ask you to state whether or not he claimed to have been ordained according to this law which you have read from exhibit “J”?
Yes sir he claimed to have been ordained according to the terms of that law in the same hour that Smith was shot on the 27th day of June 1844. /\ with Mr. Strang as a prophet, and don’t say anything about what you read – just state what you know within your own experience?

58: He claimed to – have been ordained on the same day that Smith was shot and at the same hour, – is that what you stated?
Yes sir.

59: I will ask you to state, if you can, what evidence he gave to the world, or to you, that he was a prophet?
I will answer your question in the Yankee way. I read the debate between Kelley and Clarke Braden, and Mr Kelley proclaimed to the congregation and Mr Braden, that he knew Mr Smith was a prophet, and the book of Mormon of divine origin. I read his debate, and I learned it by theory, and a train of circumstances, and I used it to establish thais answer to this question,
Well I have not finished the answer yet, for I know what I am talking about from my own criticism.

60: Well that will do, – State what you know from your own experience? State what evidence he gave to you that he was a prophet and the President of the church.
I am aware of the fact that the courts when I was a boy required of a witness what he knew personally of his own knowledge and the moment you came on the witness stand and told what some body else had told you he was stopped, and not permitted to tell what others had told him, but I notice in the courts now a days, you are asked to testify to the best of your knowledge and belief, and I will say that I can answer this question in two ways, – first, I have evidence myself, personally, by being right there where he was ordained, – right on the ground, and taking into consideration the circumstances, and examining the witnesses that were there, and taking into consideration certain things that were developed there and talking with – them, and they gave me their testimony. I remember, to illustrate, that one of these witnesses was digging potatoes when I went there to satisfy myself as to-whether Strang had published the truth regarding the circumstances regarding these plates, for this man was one of the four men who was employed to dig out the casement from under the roots of the trees, – the casement that contained these ancient records that were put there before the tree grew. He told me that Mr Strang told these men that if they would dig up the ground all around to see that they were not imposed on they would find that it was old soil that had not been removed or moved before, and they did so, and it had every appearance of being firm soil, and then Mr Strang told them that if they would cut the tree down and dig it up they would find the casement, and they man that told me about it said that they did do so and he took up a potato in his hand, and twisted his fingers around it and held it up, and said there was the casement under that tree with the roots of the tree around it just as my fingers are around that potato in my hand, and he said “it was with a good deal of difficulty that we got that casement out of the roots, for we had to remove it with a good deal of trouble, which is evidence to me that the casement was there before the tree grew”, and the fact that it was told to me in so earnest a manner, is evidence to me that it was there. Now that is what he told me, and I believe, they were there just as he stated to me, and it is also a fact that the inscription on these places were afterwards translated, and I have a facsimile of these plates that were taken by a photagrapher in Chicago, and Mr Strang’s son has the original plates today in Lansing, Michigan, the capitol of our state, for he is quite a prominent man, – the editor of a paper there and post master. Now you need not object to that, for I know I am not answering the question now, for I know that what I have said, while it is satisfactory evidence to me might not be satisfactory to the court.
Well I don’t care about that. I did not mean this to be taken as evidence but I don’t care if it does go down on the record. Now the question if I understand it, that was asked me, is what evidence I have?

61: Well that is the question?
Well I have given it to you.

62: Well that is sufficient?
 

63: What evidence have you that Mr Strang was ever appointed as Joseph Smith’s successor?
 

64: How he came to be Joseph Smith’s successor? Yes sir, how he was appointed, if at all?
Well he was appointed by a letter, – a letter that Mr Smith wrote to him making him his successor.

65: I will ask you to look at this book which I now hand you, and state what it is. (The book referred to is marked exhibit “100”)
Well that is a facsimile of the plates that Strang found, which was taken from the plates in Chicago.
You will understand that there was only three plates, and that is a photagraphic reproduction of both sides of them.

66: You may state what that book is?
This is the “Diamond”, and it is a work that Strang published at the time that he claimed to be the successor of Joseph Smith, and in it he set forth his claim to be Smith’s successor to the world.

67: Well now state what that is right there, – read that on this page? Commencing there read that?
Do you want me to read the letter itself?

68: Yes sir.
“The appointment of a successor and place of refuge, Letter of Joseph Smith to James Strang. Nauvoo June 18th 1844.

69: I was ask you to state Mr. Hickey if you can recollect whether the original letter of appointment of which that purports to be a copy, was the same as that copy there?
Well all I can say in answer to that question sir, is that the parties that have it in their possession wrote me, you ask me if that is a copy of the original of which it purports to be a copy and I will state that I believe it is. Now with reference as to where the original is I was going to state that the parties who have it in this possession wrote me a month or so ago that they had it in their possession and they live at Lansing the capital of the state of Michigan.

70: State who these parties were?
Well Mr. Strang’s oldest son is the man.

71: I will ask you to state whether or not you accepted the claims of Mr. Strang to be the head of the church, after the death of Joseph Smith?
What is that?

72: I asked you to state if after the death of Joseph Smith you accepted the claims of James J. Strang to the Presidency of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and if so when you accepted his claims in that respect?
I did.
Yes sir I did.

73: When?
When did I accept him as the President of the church?

74: Yes sir?
It was in February I guess, or in the winter of 1846 some time. Yes sir it was in the winter of 1846 I think in February.

75: I will ask you Mr. Hickey, what you know about the elders of the church before the death of Joseph Smith being instructed to electioneer for him the President of the United States?
What is the question?

76: I asked you to state what you knew about the elders in the church having been instructed before the death of Joseph Smith, to electioneer for him for the President of the United States?
I know there were men sent to my section of the country in eastern Michigan from Nauvoo, at that time to instruct the elders in that section to use their influence in electing Mr. Smith as President of the United States.

77: How do you know it?
I know it as well as I can know anything, for I attended a conference I think where they met,-that is where the elders in that district met, and Mr. Rich I think was one of them,-I don’t remember all of their names, but was three or four of them in that conference, and I remember that we were instructed to electioneer for Joseph.
Yes sir, of course I did sir.

79: I will ask you to state Mr. Hickey, who, if any, of the Twelve Apostles that constituted the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, before the death of Joseph Smith, accepted the claims of James J. Strang, as his successor,-that is as the successor of Joseph Smith?
You have asked me who of the Twelve, after the death of Joseph Smith, accepted the claims of James J. Strang as the successor of Joseph Smith, and became identified was James J. Strang?

80: Yes sir.
Well sir I can tell you what I know about that. I heard John E. Page, standing on the steps of the temple in Nauvoo deliver a lecture in defence of Mr. Strang’s claims. Now that was one of them who accepted his claims,-at least I do not think he would have spoken in the way he did had he not identified him. I know that William Smith came was to Strang, and wanted to be identified with him for both Page and Smith belonged to the Quorum of the Twelve before the death of Joseph Smith. Other than that I don’t remember that any more of them did.

81: State if you can, if any other of the officers in the church under Joseph Smith, identified Mr. Strang as his successor?
Any other officers?

82: Yes sir any other officers of any kind?
Well there certainly did, but I would have to get a sheet of the fools cap paper to write them down on, it.

83: Well just state what you can remember,-just state some of the leading ones?
Well there was Bishop George Miller,-he was one, and there was Reuben Miller, Mr. Gaylord, there was Buzzard and Post,-there was two Post’s,-they were brothers,-and there was the Wright’s and Zenas H. Gurley,- Jason Briggs, Samuel Thornton, William Marks, G.G. Adams, Dr. McClellan, and there was a Whitney, I dis remember his given name, George Bronson, Marion M. Aldrich, and his two sons. Now did I understand you to ask me who identified themselves with Mr. Strang after the death of Joseph Smith?

84: Yes sir, the members of the church who were officers in the church before the death of Joseph Smith, who after his death identified themselves with James J. Strang, and accepted him as the leader of the church?
Well these names I have given you come to my mind as I try to refresh my memory. There were many others, but that is about all that I can remember now I think, for it is hard to remember these things after so many years have passed. It all happened many years ago, but I presume if I had time and a pencil and paper I could write down as many more at least, but I believe that is all I can remember now. Yes I could I have no doubt, for there was Horace Lathrop, – he was one also, and he was a member of the Michigan Legislature too at that time.

85: I will ask you to look at that book, and state what it is?
This is the Chronicle of the church, – the records of the church under Mr Strang for a part of the time. (The paper or book above referred to and identified by the witness as the “Chronicle of the church”, is here upon marked exhibit “101”)

86: Mr Hickey you may state how you came into the possession of this record or these records?
Well sir it was in this way, – at the time of our exodus from Beaver Island I was one of the committee of three that was officially associated with Strang, that was appointed to take charge of the books and papers, as he was in a dying condition when we brought him away, and they fell into my hands in that way, for I was the chairman of the committee, and the books were naturally left in my hands.

87: I want to introduce from this record marked exhibit “101”, from page one hundred and seventy four this heading “minutes of the semi-annual conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held at Voree on the 6th, 7th and 8th of October in the year of 1848”, and I introduce the part of it to show the date of the conference?
 

88: And I shall introduce in connection with that just offered from the same book on page one hundred and seventy seven, commencing with the words “evening session opened by singing, Prayer by John Porter”. You may read it? (handing witness book.) Read the fourth line from the bottom for that is what I want?
 

89: Read the fourth line there?
“Beloit church was represented by J-W. Briggs.”

90: Read it as it is there?
“Beloit, etc. – seven members, J”W, Briggs.

91: Now read the signatures on the one hundred and seventy eighth page?
 

92: Just read it as it is there?
“James J. Strang, President, Gilbert Watson Clerk.”

93: That is the way it reads there?
Yes sir.

94: Now Mr. Hickey I will ask you to read from exhibit one hundred and one (101) on page one hundred and fifty three, commencing, at the top of the page, and reading down to the word “Gilbert Foster” I should say “Gilbert Watson”, clerk.
 

95: Go ahead and read it?
Read this page?

96: Yes sir. Read it from the top of the page down to the words “Gilbert Watson, clerk”?
“The High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, assembled pursuant to adjournment, at house of James Blakelee, in Voree on the night and day of October (the “day” is interlined in here), in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and forty seven, was organized according to the law of God in the following order to wit, 1. M.M Aldrich 2. John Porter 3. Ben G. Wright 4. Francis Fox 5. Alden Hale 6. J.W. Archer 7. Caleb Hall 8. William Savage 9. James Blakeslee 10. Finley Page 11. Daniel Avery 12. Ebenezer Page William Smith stood charged with adultery, (in margin appears in lead pencil the letters as follows “B.S.”) and apostasy. He was notified of his trial, but did not appear. Decided a common case. Pres. Strang presented the testimony of Sister Elsworth, Pres. Marks, and Ebenezer Page were also introduced as witnesses and gave testimony in the premises. (In the margin to left of page appears in lead pencil this quotation “Marks testified that Smith was guilty”). He was found guilty and excommunicated from the church, and delivered over to the buffetings of Satan, until he repent and makes satisfaction. Adjourned sine die. James J. Strang, Pres. William Marks, Assistant Gilbert Watson, Clerk

97: I will ask you to state what William Smith that is that is referred to there, if you know?
I don’t know of any other William Smith from the first time that I got acquainted with the Mormons only Bill Smith as he was called. That was William Smith, or “Bill Smith” as he was called, Joseph Smith’s brother. He is the man that is identified there.

98: It was William B. Smith, the brother of Joseph Smith the prophet?
That is the man that I understand it was.

99: I will ask you to read from exhibit one hundred and one (101) on page one hundred and fifty nine, – read commencing at the words “President Strang”, and read down to the words “on motion”?
“President Strang suggested the propriety of appointing a committee to take charge of the work upon the temple. President Marks followed with remarks upon the same subject.” Whereupon it was unanimously resolved, – that a committee of two be appointed. On motion of John E. Page, resolved unanimously, – That President Strang and Marks be appointed said committee, the vote being called seperately on each”.

100: What is the date of that?
 

101: Read the heading of this, commencing at the word “conference”, and read to the word “open”?
Conference of the church at Voree. Opened by Prayer by President Strang. Singing. On motion resolved, unanimously, – That we have full confidence in James J. Strang as President of this church, and by virtue of that office recognize him as President of the Conference.”

102: I will ask you to look at that book, and state what it is?
Well that is the record that was kept by the church under Mr Strangs adminstration of it.

103: State how it came into your possession?
Well when the pres and books were gathered up and shipped, I was as I before stated one of a committee of three that was appointed to look after the interests of the church property, books, etc, and everything, and this record was found with the other records and documents and so I have had it in my possession ever since. I have no other reason to believe that it is anything other than what it purports to be, a record of the church. (The book above referred to and identified by the witness is marked Exhibit “102”,)

104: It is a record of the church under Strangs administration?
Yes sir.

105: State if you can, any other way, that which you know that both this record and exhibit one hundred and one (“101”), – by which you can identify them?
Well I would identify them in this way, – first, after I identified Mr Strang as Joseph Smith’s successor, I was in Nauvoo when I learned that he was Smith’s successor, and I directly went out to Michigan to stop all the imigration I could from going to Salt Lake City, and I did not see Strang or go nigh him for about two years, – well yea it was about two years, – and I was invited to come up to the April conference with a gentlemen from the western part of the state, and I went up there to the conference and there I was called out and ordained under his hands, –

106: Ordained under whose hands?
Under the hands of James J Strang, and you will find the record of my ordination in these books. Then I went back again to Michigan. Now of course when I know I was at that conference and find my name in there and the record of that conference and the things that occured there, and my ordination in there, and the whole thing corresponds with my memory of it, of course I know that was the conference, and that the record relates that conference. There is the record of other men that were ordained at the time, and other conferences that I could identify too for I was there, and remember about it. I can identify it the same as I could if I was alderman in our ward, and anything transpired in connection with my official character in the ward, and there was a record of it, and I had access to the records and saw them, and I would know that they related to that particular piece of business. I would say further to the court, that this is not by any means all the records that were and are in existence.

107: Now I will ask you to read from exhibit one hundred and two (“102”), on page thirty four, commencing at the word “Tuesday”, and reading to the bottom of the page?
“Tuesday, September 16th, the Assembly met in the printers hall. Prayer by Moses Chase, Patriarch. Moved and seconded that Z.H. Gurley be appointed to preside over the branches in western and southern Wisconsin, west of Voree. By Judicial appointment. Carried. Moved and seconded that Moses Chase be sent on a mission to Baltimore M.D., and Washington vicinity. Moved and seconded that M.G. Scace be sent to the north eastern shore of Lake Ontario in N.Y., and to the county of St Lawrence, Carried.

108: What year was that?
 

109: I will ask you to now read from page thirty three, beginning with the word “printers”, and read down to the word “presiding”?
 

110: Read dow to the word “Seventies”?
Printers Hall. St James Beaver Island. Sep’t 13th 1851. Conference assembled at nine o’clock. A.M.. Pres Strang presiding. Service commence by singing, reading and prayer. James M Greig preached on false witnesses. Remarks by Phineas Wright by way of exertation to the leaders in going out to preach. Adjourned till 2′ o’clock P.M… Benediction by Pres Strang. Afternoon session. Opened by singing. Prayer by George Bronson H.P. Singing. Pres Strang after reading the secong chapter of the book of the law of the Lord, and showed the glorious exellence of the true God. Preached on the faith of man, and the great plan devised by his great Creator for his redemption. Exertations by B.G. Wright, Pres of the Stake at Voree and Zenas H. Gurley one of the seventies. Is that all.

111: I will ask you to read the head here, of page forty six?
The heading?

112: Yes sir, – just the heading?
It is “Sealing on the 14th and 15th days of September”, – it is in 1851.

113: Read all of it?
I have read all the heading.

114: Now I will ask you to read from, – read the sixth line from the bottom. Read that line there.
On no Mr Hall, you should not ask me to read that, for you are going to expose all out polygamous prac- tices, – our spiritual wife system and all that, and that is not fair.

115: Well just read that?
Zenas H. Gurley, proxy for Hiram Baxter,”

116: Now read the seventh line?
“Hiram Baxter, dead, Delaney Thomas.”

117: I will ask you to stae Mr Hickey whether or not you know anything about this sealing as it is here recorded?
Yes sir, of course I know all about it, and I would not say so unless I did know all about it.

118: I will ask you to state what this mean here were where it states “Zenas H. Gurley, proxy for Hiram Baxter”?
The sealing principle was this, – that if a man died without a wife, for thy resurrection hereafter, or life everlasting, – that is if she had not been sealed to him she was not to be his wife in the life everlasting, then he could come and claim her, and the woman could stand up in her place and by proxy be sealed to the living man, and at the same time be sealed to the one that was dead for eterni- ty, – the man that was living she could be sealed to for time, and to the one that was dead for eternity. Now that was the science of it.

119: I will ask you to state whether or not that admit- ted of a woman, I should say of a man being sealed to more than one woman?
Permitted a man to be sealed to more than one woman

120: Yes sir?
Of course he would have to be sealed to more than one woman. Now with reference to us Mormon people -, we generally calculate to marry for the life everlasting, but if a man had lost his wife and wanted to have her, he would have both of them sealed to him. The one that was left would not be piggish about it and say he could not have the one that was dead, but that he could have both of the, and so he could have her sealed to him, and then have both of them.

121: I will ask you to state whether this system of sealing permitted a man to have more than one woman sealed to him at the same time? That is, have more than one living woman sealed to him at the same time?
I do not know that there is anything in the simple act of sealing, so far as that goes. When Strang translated these plates that Smith left untranslated he did not believe in polygamy until he translated the plates. He never published it or said anything about it until he translated these plates, and when he came to the plates on the floor and said he would not publish it, and then he was reproved by the same power that Smith was reproved by, and told that he would have to go on with his work, or be punished for his refusal to do so.

122: What plates were these to which you refer?
The plates what Nephi took from Jerusalem, – Strang translated them and found in them the law of polygamy, and after the translation he published it and then he endorsed the doctrine of polygamy after he was commanded to do so.

123: I will ask you if, – I will ask you to state whether or not this sealing referred to here now, was really the law of Laban?
Well I know what the sealing was, and I know what polygamy was and I can explain all about it if you will give ma chance to do so.

124: Well state whether or not this sealing that was practiced as recorded here, was carrying out that law of polygamy?
Well I will tell you in a moment, if you will give me a chance to think it over. Why in the first place among us, we brought up our children to believe in it, and we never though of marrying or marriage without being sealed, and if you came into Strangs’s church having first been married by other authority, we did not consider the marriage as any better than baptism in that other authority. That is my experience in that matter, and that is what Mr. Strang taught and what is taught in that book, and what was the practice there. So far as being married is concerned we considered that the priesthood should join us in marriage, and then pertaining to the future by the same authority and by the same law. Now the book of the law that Strang translated makes provision for that.

125: Makes provision for what?
For marriage and sealing.

126: Now Mr Hickey I will ask you to read from pages thirty six commencing at the word “minutes”, at the bottom of the page?
 

127: The part I want you to read is from the word “Minutes”, down to the bottom of the page?
“Minutes of the general assembly of the Saints held at the Enock Grove, on the 8, 9, 10, and 11th days of July 1852, a thank offering was offered to the Lord, on the 8th of July by most of the heads of the families in the kingdom” in communication of the day that God gave us the kingdom.

128: Now I will ask you to read on page thirty eight commencing at the words “Afternoon session”, and reading down to the word “Bishop”?
Afternoon session. Service commence by singing. Prayer by L.D. Hickey, one of the Twelve. Singing. Pres Strang finished the discourse that was commenced in the forenoon. The quorom of the twelve have taken the case of Samuel Graham into consideration and have dropped him from the Quorom for apostasy, and the conference concur in what the Twelve have done, and his priesthood taken from him. James Blakeslee dropped for heresy and Jehiel Savage dropped for the same, and their priesthood taken from them. Zenas H. Gurley priesthood taken from him. Adjourned until 9 o’clock to morrow. Benediction by James M. Greig, Bishop.

129: I will ask you to – state if you are the man referred to in that record as “L.D. Hickey”?
Yes sir, I am the very man and none other.

130: I will ask you to state whether or not you saw that book which you now hold in your hands at that time, and whether or not you can now identify it?
Well my wifes name is in here, and there is my name too. Now this was a great many years and it is hard for me to say as to that. I knew the clerk very well, – I recollect the occasion very well, but when it comes to identifying a thing like that it is hard to do. Why I might be asked ten years from now if I could identify that book there (referring to Notary’s note book) and I might not be able to do so, although I might remember that gentleman, and know that I had seen a book like that one perhaps, and in all probability I would not be able to identify it. I could say that at this time I was familiar with the work, and I saw it there.

131: Well were you familiar with the hand writing of the clerk?
Mr Hall?

132: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

133: You are familiar with his hand writing?
I think I am.

134: Well state whether or not you can identify that as the hand writing of the clerk that wrote it?
Well now I will tell you Mr Hall, that so far as the clerks hand writing is concerned, I will say that while Mr Hall was our general recorder and clerk and generally attended the conferences and wrote up the records, but still he did not always do it, for some times he was not there or could not be there, and then we would appoint some body in his place, – we had others that officiated in his place or for him, and so I could not say that he always did. I did not see Mr Hall’s name here on the page you refer to, but you will see my name there several times if that is any use to you, and I have no doubt at all but that is the regular record of the church?

135: I will ask you now to read on page thirty nine, at the close of the minutes of that conference, the signatures?
The signatures did you say?

136: Yes sir, the signatures?
 

137: Whose signatures are they there on that page at that place?
Well if I was going to testify I should say that that was Mr Strang’s writing. That is what I would say, and I would say that that was Mr Hall’s.”

138: Well read the signature?
James C Strang, President, H.G. Hall clerk. I think that is their signatures to the best of my knowledge, recollection and belief.

139: Now Mr Hickey as I believe you did not read the letter from Joseph Smith to James J Strang set forth on the first page of exhibit “101”, and the succeeding pages, I will ask that you now read it, unless these gentlemen will consent that it may be copied into the record by the reporter?
 

140: Now I will ask you to state Mr Hickey what you know in relation to the appointment that had been written from Nauvoo by Joseph Smith to James J Strang?
Well I think I stated what I knew about that.

141: Well I have no recollection of it if you did, and now I will ask you to state what you know about that appointment having been written or delivered to James J Strang? Just state what you know about it?
Well I know it was, –

142: Well given your reasons for knowing that?
Well I don’t know that Mr Harrison is President of the United States when it comes down to that. I did not see him inducted or inaugurated into office yet no one will deny but that he is the President of the United States. I only know that by hearsay for I never seen him; and I do not know that there is such a man as Grover Cleveland only by hearsay”.

143: I will ask you to state whether or not you have invistigated that letter to know whether it was genuine or not?
I have sir.

144: Well state the results of your inxestigation?
Well at the time I went to Voree to satisfy my mind, – The first time I saw Strang I had my scruples of course as to his genuineness, but no more sir-than I had as to Joseph Smith. For I had to satisfy myself in regard to both Strang and Smith as best I could by picking up evidence here and there regarding their claims and to learn whether they were what they purported to be. Now that was the way it was, and when I first went to Voree I went more as an enquirer than anything else, and I went to Mr Sheldon the postmaster at Burlington, Wisconsin, for it was said that he took that letter out of the mail bag and I interviewed him and he told me it was so; and then I went to Mr Barnes the man that it was said Mr Sheldon had delivered the letter to and I interviewed him. Now I interviewed these two men and I can’t say now what was said pro and con for it was to long ago for me to remember what they said, but I remember something which Barnes said, which I am at liberty to mention here however. He said that he had received it from Mr Sheldon, and from what they told me they satisfied me that Strang got the letter and came by it honestly. Sheldon said that he took it from the mail bags himself, and gave it to Barnes, and Barnes said he got it from Sheldon who was the post master, and that he (Barnes) carried it to Strang. The Brigamites said that Strang forged that letter and when I first heard of it I was along with many others just as sceptical as any one about that latter, and so we were bound to dig the facts up in relation to it, and that was the reason I took the pains I did to get at the facts, for I wanted to satisfy myself about it.

145: I will ask you Mr Hickey to read on page one hubdred and three of exhibit “101”, – just read that letter on pages one hundred and three, four and down to page une hundred and five?
 

146: Go on and read it?
“Kirtland, Ohio, Aug 14th 1846 Dear Brethern and sisters, – I sit down to write a brief account of our work so far. I arrived here in good season, getting in at the opening of conference the 7th. Conference set four days and was well attended, the lower court of the temple being well filled on sabbath day (the word “day” apparently Young written over the word “evening”). There were four hundred in attendance Saturday. Win(???) preached twice during the setting and I did four times. Sabbath day I spoke eight hours in my most rapid manner on the order of the church, and in a congregation filling a space fifty five feet, square there was not one unattentive person and I may safely say there were not five persons were not convinced of the truth of every position I took. Monday was devoted to the transaction of business. A set of officers nearly full for the stake were appointed. Lester Brooks was ordained one of the Twelve apostles. Resolution were passed (with but one dissenting voice) sustaining the true authorities and order of the church: and a strong mission appointed to go to England and such arrangements made that they will have here in with (the word “here” is written over another word that is illegible) sufficient means to go by steam to Europe before the end of the month. Of the Twelve Moses Smith and Lestor Brooks, of the High Priests, Martin Harris and Hazen Aldrich, and several elders go out. No difficulty was experienced in raising the necessary means, and nothing has occured to mar ou r joy or in any respect to depress our hopes, we have God in our midst by the strong testimony of his spirit, we have the house of the Lord and his people for they are of us, and we intend to have all their church property for the benefit of Mother Smith and of the poor of the church. The temple here is deeded to Joseph Smith, President of the church as sole trustee in trust, and to his successors in the first Presidency forever, and we have it in peaceful and undisputed possession. The farm is in the possession of a church agent, by disputing the right of every body who may claim to represent the church. We have got a Bishop will be apt to attend to this case. We remain here over next Sabbath contrary to our original intentions, because the work prospers so well there, that we cannot make up our minds to leave it till it is well done up. Some have been baptized here, who never before belonged to the church. And we have won golden opinions of all people around, thus proving the truth of my oft repeated remake that the surest way of having friends is by deserving them, and that when that means failed it was useless to try any other. The few who oppose us are greatly dissapointed at the success of our efforts, and the members and the unanimity of our brethern. The temple is a most splendid edifice, in much better repair than I had any idea of finding it. We intended making arrangements for building a stone wall around it, and putting it in first rate repair, and thus save something valuable out of the vast sacrifice, and toils of the brethern in times gone by. With all the success that has attended the preaching of the gospel by this church, there is no people who have sacrificed so much, failed so often, or made so many abortions. And why? Because they have not kept he law of the Lord, nor been governed by his word. Preaching the true gospel, God has given them success; but practicing contrary to his law, he had given them judgements. My thoughts are turned anxiously to Voree, and my prayers to up to God three times a day for her peace. As oft as ye eat bread I beg you consider if there be any bickerings among you and to remember that though far away, the heart of your prophet is in your midst, his thoughts upon you, and his prayers ascending up to the throne of God for your peace. Yours in truth ever, James J. Strang. To the church at Voree.

147: I will ask you to state Mr Hickey who, if any one, was appointed by Mr Strange to act as associate Presidents with him?
What is that question?

148: I asked you to state who, if any one was appointed by Mr Strang to act with him as associate Presidents. That is as Presidents of the church?
Mr Strang did not appoint any one. It was his prerogative, – You asked me who he appointed?

149: Yes sir?
Ah that will do. William Marks was one and George J. Adams was another, – they were the two that were appointed.

150: State whether or not there was any bode else appointed through a revelation through Mr Strang?
Well they were appointed through a revelation.

151: Well what I want to get at is whether there was any body else appointed?
Well if I remember right, and I think I am correct, they were removed, and then the Quorom was filled up by the same rule that it had been filled in the first place. It was filled I think by the same rule that these other members had been appointed. Now I think there was some others, – oh yes I remember there were, – of course there was, – oh yes I remember there were, – of course there was, – Why “Young Joe” was appointed”, –

152: To whom do you refer?
Well I refer to young Joe Smith, Joseph Smith, – I beg your pardon gentlemen for referring to him so familiarly for really the state of friendship that exists between us hardly warrants my addressing him or referring to him so familiarly. They get it off on me some times you know as “Jim Strang” and I try to get back at them when I can. I meant Joseph Smith, and I am sorry that I said “Young Joe”.

153: Can you refer to the revelation?
November 6th 1846.

154: That was the date of it?
I think so if I am not greatly mistaken that is the date.

155: Can you refer to that revelation there in that book.
I think I can.

156: Well please refer to it?
Well it was on November 6th 1846 I am quite positive, but this in here does not give the date, and I thought it did. I haven’t paid any attention to it much for years I haven’t paid any attention to amount to anything to these books for years, until lately, and I am not prepared to turn right to the pages where these things are. I have it though in another book here that I can refer to, and I think it will expidite business for me to do so. 156 (Second question and answer numbered 156)

156: Well you can do so?
(Witness refers to another book and abswers). No sir it is not in there, – the date is not in there, but I have books that I think it is in.

157: Well see if you can get it?
Well let me see. I can’t find it in here (referring to exhibit 101)

158: I will ask you to look at that book Mr Hickey and state what it is?
It tells what it is right in there.

159: Well you may state what it is?
It is the book of the law of the Lord.

160: It is the book of the law of the Lord?
Yes sir. The book above referred to and identified by the witness as the book of the law of the Lord is marked exhibit “103”.

161: Well state, if you can, what that book is?
It is the book of the law of the Lord, and consists of the translations of the plates that Joseph Smith, – Joseph Smith unsealed, and which were delivered to Mr Strang by the same authority that placed the book of Mormon, – I should say by the same authority that the plates the book of Mormon is taken from was delivered to Mr Smith. By P.P. Kelley, – “That question and answer is objected to for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immeterial, and I move the court to exclude that answer for that reason.

162: I will ask you to state, if you can, how it was translated?
How what was translated?

163: These places you have referred to?
It was translated just the same as the book of Mormon was translated, – by the Urim and Thummim.

164: I will ask you to state whether or not Mr Strang claimed to have the Urim and Thummim in his possession?
 
Yes sir he did have them.

165: I will ask you to state Mr Hickey whether or not there was nay talk among the elders of the church before the death of Joseph Smith in regard to the doctrine of what is now commonly called polygamy, or plural marriage?
 

166: Answer the question?
Oh don’t bother me about polygamy. You can get along without that.

167: Well just answers the question in your own way?
Yes sir, why of course there was.

168: I will ask you whether or not it was understood that there was such a doctrine being secretly practiced in the church?
Well I have no scruples about answering that question at all, but by way of explaining myself to your misunderstanding, – (Questions numbered 169 – 188 are missing)

189: Just answer the question, – the explaining part will come later on?
I will answer it my own way, – in order that I might be better understood I might say yes or no to that question, and both answers be correct. Now I don’t know that I thoroughly understand that question so will, you please be kind enough to repeat it? By Mr Hall, –

190: Just answer the question I asked you?
What is the question? That is what I want to know?

191: I asked you if that was generally understood that there was such a doctrine as plurality of wives, commonly called polygamy, being secretly practiced in the church before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir there was.

192: How did you know that?
I carried an High priest from Detroit, or a little ways out – of Detroit, – and we travelled about six hundred and fifty miles that winter. He had been sent out from Nauvoo to buy glass for the temple, – to trade off some land that the church had and get some glass for the temple with it, and he was trying to make the trade and get the glass from the glass company there at Mt Clemens in Macomb county, and I carried him up there on purpose to learn what I could regarding the Mormon church, for I hadn’t been in the church for long at that time, and I was curious to find out all I could about it. I learned from him all I wanted to learn and he taught me things that he said were taught here, but I never said much about it for it seemed to me not to be policy to say any thing about what he taught me. He taught me many a thing that I never heard before. For example he taught me that if my wife proved to be of the tribe of Judah and I was one of the tribe of Ashur or Dan, she she would be taken from me and given to a man that was of the tribe of Judah. Now that was one of the things that were taught, and there were other things similiar that were taught, to me. Well now I was just fool enough to keep it quiet to myself and not say anything about it openly, but I said to myself “well if my wife is of the tribe of Judah, and I am of the tribe of Joseph or any other tribe, and she wants to leave me, why let her rip, I don’t care”. I remember that conversation right well, and it was funny. I remember saying to him “now you should be very careful what you teach me, for I am young and tender, and if I teach these secrets you will have to kick me out of the church”, but it did not make any difference, -I got all I wanted.

193: I will ask you to state whether there was any rule or law in the church that required revelations to be be presented to certain Quoroms to be tested?
Not that i know of.

194: You don’t know of any law to that effect, or rule?
No sir, and i will say that I never heard of anything of the kind until I heard it from the Brighamites and Josephites. They have testers. Brigham had one and left it in Nauvoo, and went off with out it but he got it after he was out there at Salt Lake when he was told that the church was rejected he brings it in and says it was because the church was without a tester, -Now that is what Hyde says about it. I thought from the way the Josephites accused the Brighamites, that Brigham left his in Nauvoo, or lost it some way. But I don’t know about this, and I don’t want that to go down as testimony, for I am only talking in a jocular way, and not as evidence. I tried to find out something about Young Joseph’s tester but I couldn’t find out anything about it, for it is something I never heard of or read of before.

195: Take the witness? Cross examination by P.P. Kelley, –
 

196: You joined what you have designated as the “Mormon church”, when you were thirty years old? Is that what you stated?
No sir, I did not say so.

197: You did not?
No sir.

198: Well what do you say bout that now?
I said I joined the church in 1842.

199: How old were you at that time?
I don’t know how old I was. I never figured it up.

200: Well that would make you thirty years old exactly, would it not?
I don’t know.

201: Well what is your best impression as to your age?
I don’t know sir. I have told you my age and I tel you I joined the church in 1842, and you can figure it out for yourself if you want to find out how old I was when I joined the church. Whether I was older or younger than thirty at that tie I do not know.

202: You were born in February 1812 were you not?
Well I don’t say how old I was, you can figure that out too if you want too.

203: When you were born?
I do not know.

204: About what year were you born?
I don’t now, I can figure it out I suppose and tell you if you will give me time to do it. but I think you would do it quicker than I could, for I am not as quick at that kind of work as I once was.

205: How old are you now?
Last February if my progenitors or parents kept the record right and marked my age down correctly, marked my birth down correctly. I was seventy eight years of age.

206: Now if your progenitors and parents kept your age correctly, and marked it down, they must have marked down the date of your birth, and that is what I am asking you for?
I don’t know, for I never figured it.

207: Do you decline to answer the question?
I do not.

208: Then why do you not answer it?
I say I never figured it.

209: That is not an answer to the question?
What is the question?

210: When were you born?
I can’t tell.

211: Can you tell within two years?
You can figure it out for me if you will, or any other gentlemen in the room can do it, and then I can tell you. I don’t care when it was. I was born sure enough, and that is about all there is in it that interests me.

212: Do you say you cannot figure it out yourself?
No sir I do not say any such a thing.

213: Well will you figure it out?
Yes sir, I will do anything to please you (witness here takes a pencil and piece of paper, and does some figuring and then answers). How far does that come from 1814?

214: What is that? Was it in 1814? Was it about that time?
Well that is the way I figure it out. If I made a mistake it is a mathematical mistake.

215: Then that would make you twenty eight years old about when you joined the church?
I never figured that part of it.

216: Well fourteen from twenty eight, fourteen from forty two, leaves twenty eight, don’t it?
Yes sir that is the way it looks to me.

217: Now then Mr. Hickey there is one thing you might as well understand right here and now, you must understand that I am here as a lawyer and not as a preacher or member of any church, yours or anybody else’s, and I expect to be treated like a white man, and I expect also to subject you to a cross examination that in our opinion at any rate will be right and proper, if it takes me six months to do so. Now sir you may as well understand first as last that I am here simply as a lawyer and know that my business is, and I expect to treat you like a gentlemen and be treated like a gentleman in return?
Now is that lecture done?

218: You are sure that you are done, I am?
Well sir then I want you to understand that I am here as a witness and think I know what my rights as a witness are. I am here as a witness in this case, and as a witness I expect to do my duty by your side of the case, just the same as I have done with the other wise of the case until I am examined and cross examined and you are done with me. I will do the best I can, and if I cannot answer your question, why I can’t, and that is all there is to it when I tell you that I cannot answer them. I don’t care about your being a lawyer or a preacher or ever whether you are a member of any church. I will treat you well and courteously just as long as you treat me that way. Now sir I trust we understand each other. What question do you wish me to answer?

219: Well that would make you about twenty eight years old when you joined the church, would it not?
I can’t say.

220: Well fourteen from forty two leaves twenty eight, does it not?
Yes sir.

221: Now what year was it that you went on that glass hunting expedition with that gentleman?
It was in February I think. I think it was in February, or some time in the winter of 1846.

222: Was it 1846 or 1847?
Well I think it was in 1846.

223: It was, – you are sure of that?
I could tell by referring to my books but I have not paid any attention to this thing for a long time, and so I cannot say as to the exact time but I guesss it was in 1846. I am pretty positive it was for it is in my memory that it was in February of 1846 that we started out on that “glass expedition”, as you call it.

224: Who was with you?
I took Dr Lyman Stoddard.

225: You were an elder in the church then?
I was.

226: When were you ordained an elder?
I was baptized in February of one year, and they held the conference at the county seat there in the following winter, – it was in 1843 I guess.

227: In 1843?
Yes sir, or shortly after that?

228: That you were baptized an elder in the church?
Yes sir.

229: You did not belong to the church quite a year, until you were ordained an elder?
Yes sir.

230: Who ordained you an elder?
An elder?

231: Yes sir?
N. Lyrienne. He ordained me.

232: Where at?
At LaPere the county seat.

233: What was he?
An High Priest.

234: He ordained you an high priest?
I said no such a thing as that. I said that the man that ordained me was an high priest.

235: Well then you were ordained an elder in Michigan?
Yes sir.

236: And you began to preach right away?
Oh yes – – I went right at it right away.

237: Where did you preach the first year after you were ordained?
The first year after I was ordained an elder?

238: Yes sir?
In Macomb county, Oakland County, Livingstone county, and LaPere county and Genesee county.

239: You preached in all of these counties which you have enumerated?
Yes sir. I preached in all of these counties.

240: Your preaching was all done in theestate of Michigan up to 1844 was it not or in Wisconsin, – in Michigan or Wisconsin it was all done up to 1844 was it not
Now let me see. Yes sir I think it was, – Well now I don’t know about that, for I don’t remember going out of the state of Michigan to preach before 1844?

241: You preached polygamy did you not in 1843 and 1844 up in the state of Michigan and Wisconsin?
No sir I did not.

242: Why did you not do it?
I was not authorized to do that.

243: Were you taught polygamy before that?
Well I don’t, – – –

244: Well answer the question?
All right sir. Suit yourself, I will answer it. What is the question?

245: Did you ever hear of Joseph Smith, or Wilford Woodruf or John Taylor or John E. Page or Lyman Wight, or any of the twelve of the original church, prior to the 27th day of June 1844, teach polygamy either publicly or privately?
No sir.

246: You never heard them or any of them, teach it either publicly or privately?
I don’t remember as I ever did. Not these parties that you mention. No, I never did.

247: They were the leaders in the church were they not?
In fact I never saw some of them any where. 246 (Mistakenly listed as number 248)

247: Did you ever see Joseph Smith?
No sir.

247: You never saw Joseph Smith at any time?
No sir.

248: Did you ever see Woodruf?
Yes sir, I think that I have seen Woodruf.

249: Well do you know whether or not you ever saw him?
Yes sir. I saw Woodruf.

250: Did you know Sidney Rigdon?
No sir.

251: Did you know Hyrum Smith?
No sir.

252: Did you ever see him?
No sir.

253: Did you know Martin Harris?
Yes sir I knew him in Palmyra, and I drwed wood off his farm.

254: Did you ever hear him preack polygamy?
Did I ever hear him preach polygamy?

255: Yes sir?
No sir, for I was a boy at the time I drawed wood off his farm. I never heard him preach polygamy or anything else.

256: Did you ever hear Mr Strang preach polygamy before 1844?
No sir I don’t know that I ever heard him preach polygamy any where, either publicly or privately any where.

257: Do you say that you never heard him preach polygamy prior to 1844?
I don’t know as I ever did.

258: Now did you not state in your direct examination that you did not hear Strang teach polygamy, and as a matter of act he did not teach it until after he had translated the book of the law of the Lord?
Yes sir, – I don’t know that I said that in so many words but that was as I understood it.

259: Well he never taught it until then?
I don’t remember that he did. If he did I think I don’t know anything about it.

260: It was not any part of the Strangite doctrine until that time? Is that not the fact?
I don’t remember that it was.

261: Well you were a member of the church then?
Yes sir.

262: Well did any of the members of Strangs church teach it up to that time?
I don’t remember that they did. I don’t remember that they did until the book of the law of the Lord came out.

263: When did he translate the book of the law of the Lord?
Well now hold on, – I have the records that were made from the plates. It came out at different times and in different ways, – I may say that it came out in pieces. I remember that a part of it was published in pamphlet form.

264: Well when did he commence it?
What, – commence what?

265: The work of translating the book of the law of the Lord?
Well now you have got me there.

266: Well does the book state the date?
Well you can read it if you want to do so, and see for yourself.

267: Well you look at it yourself and tell us that. I never saw it before an I am not familiar with it, for you see I did not pay as much attention to the law of the Lord as you did?
Well all I can say is that I am sorry for you for you are a pretty good looking fellow, and I presume a pretty good fellow, – at least I think I would find you so when get acquainted.

268: Oh yes, I guess we could get along all right?
Well now let us take one thing at a time. I don’t think the date is given in here at all.

269: Well you can give the date at which the plates wer found from which it was translated?
The time they were found?

270: Yes sir, at the time they dug up the tree?
Well they were other plates, – that was not these plates, but the plates from which this book – was translated were other plates altogether. What is your name?

271: My name is Kelley, and I am not ashamed of it either?
Well I now your name now, –

272: I am not a brother of John Kelley or his son either, and I am not a prophet?
Well let that pass, – these were not the plates that were found under that tree.

273: Where did he get these?
They were the plates that were brought from Jerusalem, – taken from Laban, – they were the plates that Smith left un-translated. That photograph that I showed you a while ago was a photograph of the plates that were found under the tree.

274: And the other plates were the plates that came from Jerusalem?
Yes sir.

275: Well how did Strang get hold of the plates that came from Jerusalem?
Well now my dear brother I do not pretend to tell you for I don’t know any thing about it only from hearsay. If I ever knew any thing more about it has passed out of my mind, and I havn’t has occasion for years to refresh my memory on these things but I have records that would explain every thing I know about that.

276: How do you know they were brought from Jerusalem by Laban?
It is Laman.

277: Well how do you know they were brought from Jerusalem by Laman?
Well how do I know that the book of Mormon was brought, – how do I know anything?

278: Well answer my question, – how do you know it?
How do I know it?

279: Yes sir, that is the question, – how do you know it?
Well sir I know it in two different ways.

280: Well tell us how you know it, and cut the two ways as short as you can so that we can get on?
First I know it by investigation and criticising the claims – well now how do I know it, – how do I know anything? Somebody told me that Harrison was elected, and I believe it and know that he was and is President. I know that, but I did not see him elected, and I had to form my conclusion and base my belief of the fact upon the evidence that was presented to me of the fact.

281: Well if you were to come here and swear that Harrison is the President of the United States based on your knowledge it would be incompetent, for I am asking you for your personal knowledge of the fact as to your statement that Laman brought the plates from Jerusalem?
Well of course I can not say for I was not there when Nephi got the plates, but there is the record that he did, and it is just as satisfactory in my mind of the fact as any record can be. I was not there when Nephi got the plates, –

282: Well I thought you were not and that is the reason I was calling your mind back to it?
No sir it is a fact I was not there, – that was long before my day.

283: Well then you do not want to go on record as saying that Strang translated the plates that were brought by Laman from Jerusalem?
By Nephi from Jerusalem.

284: Well yes, that will do?
Well yes sir I want to go on record as saying that Strang translated from those brass plates that were brought from Jerusalem and he translated the book of the law from (not sure this word not knowing the context-then, maybe?). That is what I want to go on record as saying sir.

285: Do you say that it was from the plates that the law was taken, -that the translation was taken from the plates that were brought from Jerusalem?
Yes sir.

286: How do you know they were brought from Jerusalem?
Well sir I have nothing further to say, only that I Have answered that question before.

287: You know it by hearsay?
Yes sir, and I know a thousands things by hearsay as well as I can know any thing, and that is one of them. I know too by questions and criticism. I know that Grover Cleveland lives although I never saw him, and I know that London is in England and Dublin in Ireland, and I know all these things from the same principle that I know that Strang translated all these plates that Joseph Smith left untranslated.

288: And that is the only way you know it?
No sir, I have a better way than that.

189: You know a better way than that?
Yes sir.

290: Well you ought to tell the best way you have of knowing it first?
Well I don’t know about that.

291: How do you know it at all?
Well Mr Kelley with all due respect to you I do not wish to put myself on record as you do, -as a witness you had here did. With all due respect to you I do not wish to put my self on record in that shape and have all the lawyers in the state of Michigan laughing at me. I don’t wish to do that for he said he had revelations as a man did here in court, – a man said he had revelations about Joe Smith’s successor and all that sort of thing and told his vision.

292: How do you know that was done, -were you here and did you hear and see it?
Well now I was not here but you don’t deby that he did that, do you? That was Mr Briggs and I guess you don’t deny ti.

283: Well you heard of it or read of it in a paper?
Yes sir, but there is no doubt but that it occurred.

294: Well come and tell us how you know that other thing – that Strang translated that book from these plates?
Well I say I know it by two principles, -first by close criticism and that tells me that Strang translated these plates, and I know it besides by the principle that God has given me, and that is faith in him and his work. That is the best and surest way of knowing a think -at least it is the most satisfactory to me, and brother Kelley knows how that is.

295: You keep your strongest ideas about how you know ti is so to your self? Do you do that because you are afraid that some body will laugh at you if you were to tell what they were?
I have never been used to going into any court and have people tell that hey know thing by revelations and visions. Now that is the way it is with me for I do not propose to put myself in the position that Briggs did and have what I say put in the papers from one end of this land to the other, for the Judges in Michigan ask bout what is going on here, and what kind of a court it is that permits such to go on as evidence, and the lawyers talk about it, and I do not propose to place myself in that position and be talked of in that way. You must respect my feelings as well as your own.

296: Well I am asking you for the facts, and I do not care anything about what these fellows discuss up there in Michigan, I am asking you for the facts now?
Well I do, and that is where we differ I have some regard for my own character for common sense and discretion if you have not, and I propose to protect it to the best of my ability.

297: Now you say you saw something in the paper about what witness had stated here?
Yes sir.

298: How do you know whether that article you saw in the paper was true?
well I saw it in the Herald, – Joe Smith’s paper, – that is where I read it and I reckon it would not be in there if it was not true. It was the laughing stock of the country, and Judge Chipman up there where I live said “if they go into that work again you send me a copy of the minutes of the court”, and I tell you that I don’t propose to be put in that position, or to put myself on record in that way if I can help it. I don’t want to go back a laughing stock.

299: The article you read was taken form the Kansas City Times and was re-published in the Herald?
I don’t know anything about that. I know I read it in the Herald.

300: Now I wish you would give me the date as near as you can, when these plates form which the law of the Lord was translated by Strang first came into his possession?
Into whose possession?

301: Into Strangs possesion, – just give me the date as near as you can when they came into Strangs possession?
You mean the plates from which the law of the lord was translated?
Do yo want to know when he got the plates?

302: Yes sir that is what I want to know if you can give it to me?
Well if you will bear with me a minute or two I will try and refresh my recollection, and give you the date as near as I can remember it. You are not particular as to the day or the month are you.

303: No sir I want to know just about the year, – just about the time as nearly as you can recollect it?
Just a general “bird eye view” of the situation is what you want?

304: Yes sir?
Well Strang was ordained on June 27th that Joseph Smith was shot, and he advertised, – Now you will have to take this second handed, just the same as I did, for I was not there, and don’t know only what I heard about it. He advertised that the angel told him that Joseph Smith had left untranslated these plates and the angel said “unto thee they are reserved”, and as it was on the 27th of June that he got that ordaination, I suppose that was the date that he got them or received information of the plates from which the book of the Law of the Lord was translated. I don’t know when he actually got them but he had the, for I know there was a steam boat came into our harbor late in the fall that year, too late to run to Chicago and they left it there all winter in our charge, and Mr Strang took possession of it and used it to translate the plates on board it.

305: What time did that staem boat come into your harbor?
I think it was in October.

306: It came there in October 1847?
I am not sure as to the year, but it was some time between that and 1850. I could by overhauling my books gave you the year and the day I believe, but I can’t do it now.

307: Well it was some where between 1847 and 1850?
I think it was but I could not say positively. I can’t be positive as to these dates, and I cannot answer definitely from my memory.

308: Well then Strang did not know antyhing about polygamy until he commenced to translate these places.
He never published any law upon the subject until then.

309: Then it is a fact that he did not know anything about polygamy until then? Is that not the fact?
I don’t know what he knew about it. I know that he did not publish any law on the question until that time, but I don’t know what he knew about it before that time.

310: So far as you know he did not know anything about it?
No sir I don’t know whether he did or not. I know he did not publish any law on the question until that time. Hold on now, there was perhaps a dozen of it translated at first, for he was told to translate it little by little, and give it forth in proportion to the faith of the people, and he put forth a pamphlet of the book of the Law of the Lord, – I don’t know how many pages there was, but there was not many for it was just a little pamphlet. I know I got one, but as to his publishing anything about polygamy, I don’t know that he did until he published that.

311: You mean until he published the book of the Law of Lord?
Yes sir.

312: When he translated these plates and found out what they commanded did he not throw it all down on the floor and stamp on it and cuss it and tear around generally Didn’t he do that?
Did I say that?

313: Well did you not say that in substance?
No sir.

314: You did not say that?
No sir.

315: Well what did you say?
I said that he threw the translation down on the floor and declared that he would not go any further with it. I said that he threw the plates or the translation on the floor and said that he would not go any further with it. That is what I said that he did when he found out that it taught. If it is down any other way it is wrong, and so I want you to put it down the way I say it now and have it right.

316: Well now that was some where between 1847 and 1850 that he had that experience, and threw that business down on the floor?
Yes sir I suppose so. I said that I didn’t know the date, but it was at the times that he was translating the plates; and when he did that the angel appeared to him, abd commanded him to go on with the work and he did so.

317: Now Strang never believed in polygamy until that time? Is that not the fact?
I don’t know.

318: He would not have thrown the plates down on the floor and decline to go on with the work if he had heard or knew of it before?
I can’t say as to that.

319: Well did you not say this morning that he never believed in it that is never believed in polygamy until after he translated the plates and threw it down on the floor, and did not believe in it then until the Lord knocked it into him by main strength and awkwardness? Didn’t you say that?
I say that he did not believe it until then? – that is did not publicly believe in it, but I don’t know what he believed in privately before that. You did not ask me if he believed in it, but you asked me if he had heard of it before that time, and I said I did not know what he had heard. I can’t say as to what another man may have heard or may not have heard. He may have believed in it privately before that for all I know.

320: Well if he had believed in it privately he would not have slammed it on the floor when he translated it, would he?
Well I should hardly think he would.

321: You don’t think he would do that?
No sir I would hardly suppose he would.

322: Well now then you take it as a fact do you that up to that time he did not teach polygamy publicly or privately, or believe in it?
Yes sir he did not teach it or practice it up to that time that I know anything about, and when it comes to stating what he believed or thought I can’t say what it was any more than I can say what Joseph Smith thought or believed.

323: You never heard him teaching it up to that time?
I don’t know that I did. I have no recollection of doing so. I never heard any one teach it publicly. Well I will say that I never heard of his teaching it publicly at any time or place until this law came out. So far as to what he done privately I don’t know anything about that, but I never heard of his teaching it publicly before that time.

324: Now it was about a year before that time, or such a matter that you were with this man after the glass for the temple?
Yes sir perhaps so. I don’t know just how long before that it was that we went on that glass expedition.

325: You took the man after the glass in 1846 did you not?
That was when I first went to Nauvoo, and took Dr. Stoddard up there in 1846.

326: Well he was the man you were with when he was after the glass for the temple?
Yes sir.

327: And that was the time that you had this talk about polygamy?
Yes sir I expect that was what it was.

328: Well if it was not that, what was it?
Well it was polygamy. It was this woman business, it was polygamy, spiritual wifery, and fornickery, and everything that way, so far as that went it was all these things.

329: Now did you not say this forenoon, some time in your examination in chief, that it was before the death of Joseph Smith that you had this talk with Stoddard? Did you not say that?
I don’t remember.

330: Well what is your best recollection now as to what you said then?
I can’t remember, but I don’t think I did.

331: Well if the record shows that you stated it then way, is the record right?
That I heard what?

332: That you had the talk with Stoddard about polygamy.
Yes sir I stated that. I said I had a talk, lots of them, with him about that.

333: And that you had that talk or conversations before the death of Joseph Smith?
Well if you will confine yourself to the dates I can answer better. If I am not mistaken Stoddard was out on a mission when Joseph was shot.

334: Well you were not out talking with him then?
Well I was not? Who said I was not? I guess I was around at conference all over the state of Michigan, and he want to them too.

335: Who was at the conferences?
I was, and Stoddard was also.

336: Well you were not after glass then?
No sir. I saw him many a time before that, and he was at my house too before that.

337: Well now did you talk with him, about polygamy on any of these occasions?
Well no there is not a doubt but that the question was brought up as I have already stated, and what I knew about it at that time, is what I have stated.

338: Well was it not in 1846 that you first learned of it?
Of what, that I first learned what?

339: Did you not state that it was in 1846 that you first learned of the existence of the doctrine of polygamy and had it explained to you?
Let me see.

340: When you were out on the glass expedition?
No sir, we talked about it at that time, and that was the first time I learned just what it was.

341: Did you not say that that was the first time you learned of it when you were out on that glass expedition?
I said that was when I first learned it of him.

342: Well now on your direct examination did you not say that it was in conversation with Stoddard when you were out on that glass expedition, that you first learned of it, and that that trip was before the death of Joseph Smith, and do you not know that there was no glass bought for the temple before 1846?
I did not say any such a thing.

343: Well what did you say?
I did not say any such stuff as that. I said that Stoddard was sent out for that purpose of seeing whether or not he could buy the glass of exchange some land for it, but I did not say that he bought it. I just said that that was the object of the trip.

344: Well did you not say that was in 1846?
No sir it was in 1844, for I went there in the fall after Joseph was shot, and took him up there to Nauvoo. He was sent out by the church to try and get the glass under Joseph Smith, if I remember right it was under Joseph for I think he was sent out there to Michigan to buy that glass if he could.

345: And that was in 1844?
Yes sir.

346: How do you know it?
How do I know anything?

347: Don’t you know that the temple was not built up to the first story when Joseph Smith was shot?
I don’t know anything about that.

348: Now as a matter of fact was it not in 1846 or 1847 that Stoddard was sent up there to Michigan for that glass?
No sir it was not.

349: You are positive of that?
Yes sir for I know it was before Joseph Smith was killed that he was sent up there. That is my best recollection now, for you are not going to get me to be positive on anything.

350: But you are positive that it was before Joseph Smith was killed that he was sent up there to buy that glass?
Oh pshaw. I said that that was the best of my recollection, and I think it was, but I can’t be positive.

351: Well how many times did you do up with Stoddard?
Once.

352: Are you positive of that?
Yes sir.

353: Well you testified when the question was asked you, or volunteered the information six or seven times that that was in 1846 that you went on that expedition with Stoddard?
Well I testify now that I don’t care what time it was. I know I was there with him, and that he told me these things, and I don’t care now what the time was. My recollection is that it was the fall or winter after Joseph Smith with shot that I went up there with Stoddard, and it was at that time that I talked these matters over with him.

354: Talked these matters over with Stoddard?
Yes sir.

355: Talked about polygamy and plural wives, etc?
Yes sir.

356: Now you say that Joseph Smith sent him, do you?
Sent Stoddard?

357: Yes sir?
Well that is my recollection of it.

358: And Joseph Smith was killed on June 27th 1844, and still you say that the next witner Joseph Smith sent him on that glass expedition mission?
I say I suppose he did. I don’t know and I don’t care who sent him, but that was my understanding of it. That is not the question as I look at it.

359: Well it is the question as I look at it, and therefore that is the reason I question you regarding it?
Well I don’t care a rip who sent him, – I suppose he was sent by the Presidency of the church or he would not have been there. I supposed he was sent by the Presidency or whoever had charge of the property.

360: Who was the President of the church then?
Joseph Smith was before he was shot.

361: Well did you not say that he was the President of the church at the time that Stoddard was on that glass expedition?
Well Joseph Smith couldn’t very well be the President after he was shot. He could not very well be President after he was dead.

362: You conclude therefore, that he was not the President after he was dead?
Not much.

363: Who was the President after Strang?
Have you got any money?

364: Well I am not going to tell you what I have, for I would just as leave have you guess on that as any thing else. Answer the question?
What is the question?

365: Who was the President of the church after Strang?
Who was President after Strang?

366: Yes sir, that is the question?
Well, well what a fool question. What makes you ask these questions any way?

367: Because I am after information, if I can get any, – I want to know just the extent of your knowledge?
The church had no successor except Joseph Smith, and after him came Mr. Strang, and it has no President to this day with the same keys and powers and authority that they had, – that is with the same keys and powers and authority that Joseph and Strang had.

368: Then there is not any President in the church who has a right to preside over the church?
No sir, not in the sense that Joseph and Strang did. Not by virtue of the seventy and the high priests.

369: Well has there any body got the right by virtue or ordination by the high priest of all high priests or in any other way?
No sir.

370: There is none?
Well I don’t identify any President after the death of Strang, but virtue of any ordination that they have made.

371: Well do you identify any at all either by appointment of the Lord or any body else, or any other power?
I do under certain restrictions.

372: Well who is it, – is it Hickey?
No sir.

373: Is it Kelley?
Not much it aint Hickey.

374: Well who is it?
Well from my stand point and criticism that I have made of the successorship, the the highest presiding officer that was in the church that I was baptized into is Young Joseph Smith.

375: Joseph Smith the present President of the Re-Organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the man?
Yes sir.

376: Then you claim that Joseph Smith is the President of the church by virtue of the appointment of the Lord or in some other way? Is that your claim?
No sir not by appointment of the Lord.

377: Well how is it if not in that way?
By virtue of an ordination that he got under the hands of Strang and in no other way. Now that is the way I know it to be and you have got it right straight Mr. Kelley.

378: Then the leadership of Joseph Smith in the original church when he did devolved on Strang according to your way of looking at it?
You mean Joseph the Martyr?

379: Yes sir.
Yes sir.

380: Strang succeeded as President after Joseph Smith the Martyr?
Yes sir.

381: And then Joseph Smith succeeded Strang by virtue of the ordination of Strang?
Yes sir. Young Joseph Smith was ordained to the same priesthood that Hyrum Smith hold, but not to the priesthood that Joseph his father, and Strang held. He holds a lower grade of priesthood than they held.

382: Well I don’t care anything about what priesthood he holds, I am just trying to find out where you claim he stands?
Well that is it.

383: You claim that he is President of the church?
Well that depends.
I do but I do not claim that he is the President of the church in the sense that Strang was.

385: Well in what sense do you hold that he is the President of the church?
He is the President of the church but not the president of the church in the sense that Strang was, because he does not hold the keys, he does not hold the same grades of priesthood.

386: Well you claim that he is the acting President of the church?
Yes sir.

387: But does not hold all the powers that his father held?
Yes sir that is what I claim, that he does not hold the same grades of priesthood that his father Joseph Smith held or that Strang hold, and therefore he had not the same powers.

388: He does not hold the powers that Strang hold?
No sir he does not hold the same power that nary one of the held.

389: At the same time he is the President of the church and in the legal succession to the original church?
He is the highest in authority that I know of in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

390: And is in the direct line of succession to the original church?
Yes sir the Presidency he holds goes in that direction, at least I hold him-in that way.

391: Well that is the position you assume with reference to the office and powers that Joseph Smith now holds, I mean Joseph Smith the Present President of the Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.

392: Now you mentioned this morning the names of John E. Page and Smith, William B. Smith, and a number of other gentlemen, probably twenty in number, that originally went with Strang or were with the organization of which he was recognized as the head?
Yes sir some of them did, and some of them died in that organization of which James J. Strang was the President, and that was the original church.

393: Strang then was in your opinion the President of the original church?
Yes sir, and he was so by virtue of an appointment to that effect from Joseph Smith.

394: Well we will go on with the branch that we were on, – do you say that all these men lived and died members of that organization?
No sir I did not say any such a thing.

395: I asked you if you now say that is the fact?
No sir it is not a fact for some of them were cut off.

396: Well who continued in it until they died?
Well that is hard to say. Let me see, – Bishop Miller was one.

397: how long did he follow Strang?
Well now Mr Kelley I can’t tell you the exact date. That is impossible, for I can’t remember the dates in this connection. I remember that he came there to Voree from Texas, and he had quite a company. I remember one man that came, and that was Mr Whitney and his family.

398: Well now is it not a fact that Miller was only in it about two years, and did not die in it at all?
Well I thought he did, but I don’t know how long he was in it, and I don’t care. Oh no, now I recollect about that. It was more than that, for he came there, – he was there when it was organized, and he was there when Strang was shot. When we went there to Voree Miller was sick and I carried him to Marengo, where he died, and so- he he did die in the church. I remember that all right now, – he was sick and died there at Marengo.

399: You remember that now?
Yes sir.

400: When did Strang die?
In 1856.

401: Well state the date as near as you can?
It was the 9th of July in 1856.

402: John E Page did not continue with Strang until he died?
Until Strang died?

403: Yes sir?
No sir.

404: He left before 1856 too, didn’t he?
Oh yes.

405: Now was John E. Page ever fully identified with the Strang movement?
Oh yes, he was. There is no doubt about that, – he was with Strang. Yes sir, he was identified with Page and he was the first on one of Twelve at Nauvoo that joined Strangs church.

406: Now was not the Page you refer to Ebenezer Page instead of John E. Page?
No sir it was not Ebenezer Page that I refer to. It was Ebenezer Page and John E. Page and a whole pile of them.

407: Well if that is the case, and John E. Page was identified with that church, that amongst your records, you do not run on the name of John E. Page?
Well you do I think if I am not mistaken.

408: Where?
In this book or the other one (referring to exhibits “101” and “102”).

409: Well is his name in either of them?
I thin it it. I don’t say that it is but I think it is, but it don’t matter whether it is or not John E. Page was there any how.

410: Well was John E. Page with you in 1851?
I think not.

411: he was out of Strang’s organization before that time?
Yes sir I think so.

412: And William B. Smith also went out, or was kicked out in some what? Is that the fact?
Oh yes, he was fired.

413: You did that also?
The church did.

414: And that was before 1851 also?
I don’t remember I remember that he came to us, but I don’t remember when he was cut off.

415: Well now I don’t care when he came to you, – I am asking you when he got out, and not when he got in?
Well that is what I am telling you, – I don’t know when he was cut off or “got out” as you put it.

416: Well William B. Smith you are positive was a member of Strangs organization?
Yes sir.

417: And you don’t remember whether or not he got out of it before 1851?
No sir, the date I am not prepared to tell you. I remember that he was in there, but the date that he was cut off I can’t tell you.

418: Well state the date according to your best recollection?
Well now I was going to tell you something about it, but you interrupted me and so I did not go on. I remember that he came there to us after 1850 and wanted us to identify him as the Patriarch in the church, and Strang told him he could not do it because “young Joe” was the patriarch, and William went around amongst the people there and tried to cozen him out of it.

419: Well now you recollect you say that that was after 1850?
Yes sir.

420: Well now when was it he went out of that organization of Strangs?
Well I can’t say. I have told you at least half a dozen time that I could not tell you. The records here will show when it was I think. Let me see the record sand perhaps I can tell you.

421: Well I want you to tell that from your recollection, if you can?
Well that is something that I could not say, for I haven’t examined these records for years. I haven’t examined them for the dates for years.

422: Well state about the time as near as you can, for I am not going to be technical as to six months of time or such a matter?
Well I cannot tell within six months or a year either, for I have not devoted my attention to carrying these dates in my mind, – I have other business to attend to.

423: Well it was some where from 1848 to 1852 was it not?
Well I think it was, but I would not be positive though as to the time.

424: Well was it after 1852?
I cannot say.

425: Well now you stated that William Marks also belonged to Strang’s organization?
Yes sir.

426: Well when did Marks leave?
Well now I can’t say. You have me again. Let me see, – Marks left, – We dedicated the temple ground there at Voree, and I recollect that he was there then for he helped lay the corner stone.

427: Was that the Strang temple?
No sir, it was the church temple.

428: Well what did you all it?
We call it “the temple”. We were going to have a temple there the same as you have here, and this temple there is not called “Joe Smith’s temple”. We were going to have a temple there.

429: Well did you dedicate the temple there?
No sir we did not. We slipped upon it, for while we did not have a chance to dedicate the temple we did dedicate the ground for it. I remember that Marks was there and helped pay tithing there, and he brought a wagon, and it is on record that he paid it in. I remember the occasion of the dedication of that ground for there was a troop marched out to the ground on that day that the corner stone was laid with music and dancing. that he came to us, but I don’t remember when he was cut off.

415: Well now I don’t care when he came to you, – I am asking you – when he got out, and not when he got in?
Well that is what I am telling you, – I don’t know when he was cut off or “got out” as you put it.

416: Well William B. Smith you are positive was a member of Strangs organization?
Yes sir.

417: And you don’t remember where or not he got out of it before 1851?
No sir, the date I am not prepared to tell you. I remember that he was in there but the date that he was cut off I cal’t tell you.

418: Well state the date according to your best recollection?
Well now I was going to tell you something about it, but you interrupted me and so I did not go on. I remember that he came there to us : after 1850 and I wanted us to identify him as the Patriarch in the church, and Strang told him he could not do it because “Young Joe” was the patriarch, and William went around amongst the people there and tried to cozen him out of it.

419: Well now you recollect you say that that was after 1850?
Yes sir.

420: Well now when was it he went out of that organization of Strangs.
Well I can’t say. I have told you at least half a dozen time that I could not tell you. The records here will show when it was I think. Let me see the records and perhaps I can tell you.

421: Well I want you to tell that from your recollection, if you can?
Well that is something that I could not say, for I haven’t examined these records for years. I haven’t examined them for the dates for years.

422: Well state about the time as near as you can, for I am not going to be technical as to six months of time or such a matter?
Well I cannot tell within six months or a year either, for I have not devoted my attention to carrying these dates in my mind, – I have other business to attend to.

423: Well it was some where from 1848 to 1852 was it not?
Well I think it was, but I would not be positive though as to the time.

424: Well was it after 1852?
I cannot say.

425: Well now you stated that William Marks also belonged to Strang’s organization?
Yes sir.

426: Well when did Marks leave?
Well now I can’t say. You have me again. Let me see, – Marks left, – We dedicated the temple ground there at Voree, and I recollect that he was there then for he helped lay the corner stone.

427: Was that the Strang temple?
No sir, it was the church temple.

428: Well what did you call it?
We called it “the temple”. We were going to have a temple there the same as you have here, and this temple here is not called “Joe Smith’s temple”. We were going to have a temple there.

429: Well did you dedicate the temple there?
No sir, we did not. We slipped upon it, for while we did not have a chance to dedicate the temple we did dedicate the ground for it. I remember that Marks was there and helped pay tithing there, and he brought a wagon, and it is on record that he paid it in. I remember the occasion of the dedication of that ground for there was a troop marched out to the ground on the day that the corner stone was laid with music and dancing.

430: Is this the book that refers to the title to the property being in Joseph Smith?
No sir. I don’t know what you mean hardly.

431: Well you read something out of a book here that referred to the title to some property being in Joseph Smith, that book was that that you read that from?
Well it was this book here, but it did not refer to this property at Voree. It referred to the property at Kirtland, Ohio, and this that I am talking about not was at Voree.

432: Is everything in that book as accurate as the statement about the title to the temple property at Kirtland?
Well I have not examined it, and so far as that statement is concerned I can’t tell you as to its accuracy or want of accuracy.

433: Then you do not know whether it is a true record or not?
Well yes sir I am. I am satisfied that it is a true record that was kept by the church. It was kept by the church the same as any other record, and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy, for whatever I have personal knowledge of it accurate. I know that.

434: Then you are well satisfied that the statement that the title of the church property was in Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

435: You are satisfied that the statement is true?
Yes sir.

436: And to his successors?
Yes sir, and I am satisfied that when that case was tried before the courts in Ohio that some one swore false too. That is something though that hasn’t anything to do with this case here, but I watched that trial in Ohio, and I am satisfied that if there ever was any false swearing done any place it was there at that trial.

437: Who were the men who did it?
Well they are dead now I will say, they are gone where all bad men go, and you don’t want to take them up either.

438: Well I would like to know who they were?
Well let them rest for they are dead and gone.

439: Well Reuben Miller continued with Strang until he died?
Yes sir. Did you say Reuben Miller?

440: Yes sir.
No sir he did not.

441: Well I mean Bishop Miller?
Well there were two bishops.

442: Well which one do you refer to?
Brother George Miller. He was the bishop in Nauvoo, and he was with Strang until he died. He was with Strang, and until Strang died he endorsed him.

443: Well was there a man called Reuben Miller?
Yes sir. Reuben Miller was a Bishop in Nauvoo, if I recollect right, and he left us and went to Brigham, and if I recollect right he died a few years ago in Salt Lake City.

444: Then he was not the Miller that remained a member of Strang’s organization until he died?
No sir.

445: Well Jason W. Briggs also left Strang’s organization?
Yes sir. He left us as you say, and we were very glad to get rid of him.

446: And Buzzard too, he left?
Yes sir, and we were glad to get rid of him. I remember him, and he was a bad egg, for he stole a pair of tongs from me.

447: And the two Posts?
No sir, one of them did, and the other did not.

448: Did not Stephen Post leave your organization?
I think that Stephen did, but I don’t know that Warren did.

449: And Thorton died in the hardness too, didn’t he?
Well yes sir I think he did. At any rate I got a letter from his son to that effect.

450: Well did Samuel Thorton die a member of the Strang organization?
S.S. Thorton died I think in Idaho a member of the Strangite church. If his son wrote me the truth he did for his son wrote me that that was the fact. He wrote me within the last six or eight months that his father died in the same church, but of course beyond that I don’t know what he did, or what church he died in.

451: Gurley left you?
do you mean Zenas H. Gurley?

452: Yes sir.
Well he left us or left him. I don’t know which it was.

453: What time did he leave you?
Well that was along in 1851 or 1852.

454: What Gurley was that?
Zenas H, the old gent.

455: Well how do you know it was him?
Well it was him. I was well acquainted with him.

456: Is it the one referred to on page thirty four of this little book, exhibit “103”?
Well you ask the question, and now I remember about it. I remember that I went down to Amboy to buy a pair of horses and wagon, and I remember that I bought the horses from him. Gurley was there and I bought the horses and wagon right in the field, and on my way back Gurley came up with me for several days, and he was there with us at our conference, and he was identified with the “Young Joe” work then, but he was there at our conference. I remember that circumstance now right well. I remember that for he told me all about it with his own lips.

457: Well now if you are through. I will ask you if your attention was not called to page thirty four of exhibit “102”, a while ago?
I think so, I guess so. I guess there is no doubt of that.

458: Now look at that, and read that line?
Moved and seconded that Z.H. Gurley, be appointed to preside.

459: That is enough. Now what paked you read that “Z.H.” it is not written that way is it?
Well when I come to look at it that is written a good deal like I write “L.D.” sometimes.

460: Well is it not written “L.H.”?
No sir I don’t know any such a thing.

461: Well don’t you know that it is?
I can’t say, it might be, I could not say.

462: Don’t you know it is “L.H.”?
No sir I don’t know any such a thing.

463: Don’t you know it is some letter other than “Z”?
No sir, don’t know that the writer of that letter there intended to make it “L” or “W”. I will say though that it looks to me something like “Z”.

464: Well is it “Z”?
Well if it was intended for “Z”, it is a bad “Z”.

465: Does it not look like an “L”?
No sir it don’t look any more like “L” than it does like “Z”.

466: Is it not in fact an “L”?
No sir I would not say that it is.

467: Well was it not Samuel H. Gurley?
No sir I don’t think it was.

468: Will you swear it was not Smauel H. Gurley?
No sir.

469: Will you swear that it does refer to Z.H. Gurley?
I will testify to this that that record there refers to Zenas H. Gurley?

470: Notwithstanding?
I will swear from my understanding and knowledge of the circumstances, and the program that it was Zenas H. Gurley. From the programme of the whole thing I will swear it was him, and that is all I can say.

471: It does not read “Z.H. Gurley”?
It might be that, but I don’t say it reads that way.

472: Well I want to pin you down to something, – dies it read “Z.H. Gurley”?
I understand that that is what the writer intended to write, but it seems to me that he did not know much about the way a “Z” was made or he could have made a better one than that. Now that is all I know about it, – my understanding is that the writer intended it for a “Z”.

473: Is the letter “Z” there at all?
Well sir I have answered that question about as many times as I propose to answer it. I am perfectly willing to go on record as sating that I have said about it and more I do not propose to say. I don’t say it is a “Z”, but I do say that is the way I understand it.

474: Who do you understand that it refers to?
I say I understand that it refers to Zenas H. Gurley. That is what the writer of that intended there is no doubt in my mind as to that sir.

475: There was an L.H. Gurley too was there not, and and S.H. Gurley?
I guess you were better acquainted with the Gurleys than I am, –

476: Well it don’t seem that I am, – Do you know who wrote that?
That record?

477: Yes sir?
I don’t know as I could say I saw any body write it.

478: If you do not know who wrote it, or did not see any one write it how does it come that you know the party that wrote it intended to write the name Z.H. Gurley?
Why sir I told you of the circumstances of meeting Mr Gurley in our conference, and at the meetings from time to time.

479: Well was it the same Gurley that you met at these conferences the same Gurley that is referred to in that writing?
Certainly. Of course it is.

480: How do you know it is?
Why because he was the only Gurley that was with us that I knew anything about.

481: He was the only Gurley that you knew anything about that was there, – is that what you say?
Yes sir.

482: Did you not know that Samuel Gurley was with you?
No sir I did not know anything about that. I don’t know that he was there.

483: You do not say that he was not there?
No sir, I don’t know anything about him. I would not say that he was not with us, for he might have been there for all I know to the contrary.

484: Did you not jump at the conclusion that it was Zenas H. Gurley that was there, because you saw the name there in the book which you hold in your hands, – that is you saw the name of “Gurley” there and you jumped at the conclusion that it was Zenas H. Gurley on that account?
No sir. Mr Kelley I am not the man to jump at conclusions. I don’t jump at conclusions sir. I know what I am talking about sir. I have no object in jumping at a conclusion or anything else in this case, for it is nothing to me how it goes, and it is no object to me whether it was the old man or some other of his boys. I simply take it s I see it and as I understand it, and give you my belief regarding it, and that is all I pretend to do. There is one thing however that I don’t want you to be in any doubt about, and that is that the old man was there, for I saw him there and know that he was there.

485: By the old man, you mean Zenas H. Gurley?
Yes sir. I saw him there, and I know that he was there.

486: Did you ever see the man that did the writings in this book exhibit “102”?
Let me see the writing.

487: Well take it and examine it (handing witness book) and state if you ever saw the man who did that writing?
I can’t say that I did to know who it was. Where was sever different parties did the writing in this book, and of course I saw the man that did it for I must have seen every body that wrote in that book, but I don’t remember who it was did the writing in that book at that place. Wait a moment until I examine it, – Oh yes sir I see now, – Mr Hall was the church clerk and Strang was the President. I expect Mr Hall did that writing there.

488: Were you acquainted with him?
Certainly I was. Of course I was.

489: Well is that his writing there?
I can’t say. it looks like it but still I could not be positive as to that.

490: Well who wrote page thirty four in exhibit “102”.
Who wrote this here (referring to page indicated in question)?

491: Yes sir, who wrote that page?
Well I should judge from the signatures here, and the names in it that H.G. Hall wrote it. He is the man whose name is signed to it as the clerk and I think it is more than probable that he wrote it.

492: Do you know from looking at the writing whose writing it is?
Well I will tell you Mr Kelley, – Mr Hall was a neighbour of ours on the Island, and he did considerable writing around there, and at that time of course I was familiar with is writing, but as so many years have passed since then, I might be mistaken if I were to identify this as his writing, but yet I think there is no doubt but that he wrote it as it purports to be written by him, and the hand writing to me looks like his. I have something of his writing yet, for in fact he wrote a license for me that I have now.

493: Did not the same hand that wrote “H.G. Hall, Recorder” write “James J. Strang President”?
I could not say.

494: Well could you not tell by looking at it?
No sir I would not say whether there was or was not. That looks more like H.G. Halls writing, and that looks like Strang to me. Now that is the way I shouls swear or testify.

495: Well now what is your best judgement as to that being Strangs signature on page thirty five?
I think it is his signature.

496: Well there is no doubt about that, but what is your best judgement as to who wrote it?
I think that Strang wrote his own name there. I don’t know through, Mr Kelley, as to that, but that is what I would say if I was called in to testify.

497: Well it strikes me that that is what you are called on to do, – to testify, – and that is what I thought you were doing?
Well that is right, – that is what I say then.

498: Remember that every word you utter is being taken down here?
Well that is all right too, – I don’t care if it is.

499: Well now what is your best judgement as to that being Strangs signature there on page thirty five?
How many times do you want me to tell you that I think Strang wrote his own name there.

500: Do you know when exhibit “102” was written?
I don’t know anything about it only what the dates show. I did not keep the records myself, that is sure

501: Do you know anything about how the records were kept at all?
Now if I recollect right Mr Kelley, the way the records were kept very frequently where we were baptizing they would write it down on a slip of paper. The clerk would do that, and he would take it home with him and he would make up the record from that, and sign it as it is signed here, and then the president would sign it as it is signed here. That is the way it would be done, – the record primarily would be kept on slips of paper or some other like memorandum, and afterwards made up at the leisure of the clerk, after which it would be signed by the President as his attention was called to it.

502: You do not call this a book, – exhibit 102, – for it is only about a quarter of a quire of fools cap paper sewed together?
That is what I call it, and you can call it what you have a mind to for I don’t care.

503: Well do you say you call it a book?
Well yes, – I call it a record.

504: You call it a “record”?
Yes sir I suppose it would be called a record, fir according to the strict way of speaking it would hardly be a book, and if it is not a book, it certainly is a record. I suppose according to printers terms it is not a book, and I should know what such things care called from a printers stand point, but I don’t remember now what they would term it.

505: Do you claim that this exhibit “102” is the original?
Yes sir it is the one we acted on as the original, – we never had any other original than that.

506: You state that positively?
I do.

507: Where did you get it?
I got that record from the store house where it was stored away with other records from the steam boat. I got them and about a ton of other records and works, and they were all rolled up, and boxed up and sent right from the Island and I got all of them and I took them home. You wil remember that I told you before or Mr. Hall, that I was one of a committee that was appointed to take charge of these matters, and that is how they came into my hands, – as a member of that committee. 607 (Numbered wrong)

507: Well have you had it ever since?
Well I could not say that I have had it absolutely all the time, but I have had it most of the time, that is assured.

508: Well it is not necessary to go into all that explanation, – I simply asked you if you have had these records ever since that time.
Well I don’t say I had them all the time sine then.

509: I refer particularly to this record marked exhibit “102”?
I don’t say I have had that one either all of the time since then.

510: Well who has had it at any time?
Well I can’t say

511: Can you name any of the parties who have had it in their possession since that time?
Since what time?

512: Since the time it first came into your possession?
Well other parties have had it in their possession part of the time.

513: How much of the time have you had it in your possession since 1857″
Well there has been quite a while in the aggregate that I did not have it. The book was borrowed from me, – Do you understand that the committee to take care of that book, and there was three in that committee. I being one. I had charge or possession of it first and after a while and after a while the other two got jealous of my having it in my possession all the time, and so I let them have it, for they said they ought to have a chance to read it if they wanted to. and so I gave it to them for that reason.

514: How did you come to regain possession of it?
Well after they had it some time I let them know in a manner that they could not mistake, and which showed that I was in earnest, that I wanted it, and when they understood that I meant business they sent it back to me.

515: Now you read in your direct examination from page one hundred and fifty eight of exhibit “101”?
Yes sir.

516: Now who made the erasure on that page?
I don’t know anything about an erasure.

517: Do you say that you do not know anything about an erasure?
Yes sir, I don’t know anything about it. 518 (Written as 519 – the first of two)

517: Don’t you know that there has been one word erased there on that page?
No sir, I don’t know that there has been.

519: Well will you look at the page and see?
I don’t know anything about it (witness takes the book and examines it). There seems to be a blot there but I don’t know that it is an erasure, – It seems to me to be a blot there.

520: Well ain’t there a word erased there?
I don’t know.

521: Was not the word “apostate” there, and was it not afterwards scratched out?
I cannot tell you.

522: You can’t see that?
There seems to be something the mawwer with it. It may be that there was a word scratched out, but it looks to me more like a blot, but still there may be a word scratched out.

523: You have had that book all the time?
No sir.

524: Well you were one of the three appointed as a committee to take care of it?
No sir. I was not the one that cared for it all the time, for I said that they borrowed it from me.

525: Well you are one of the committee of three that were to take charge of it along with with other records?
Oh yes.

526: And it has been scratched there?
Well there appears to be a blot there, but whether it is intentional or accidental I could not say.

527: Well now take a good look at it, and say whether or not it has been scratched? Put your glasses on and examine it?
Well I have examined it. I have seen it, and I say I couldn’t say whether it has been scratched or if it is only a blot. I don’t say anything about scratching, and if it has been scratched out I don’t know anything about it.

528: Well do you say it is not scratched?
No sir, I say I don’t think it has been scratched, – it is blotted in some way as it looks to-me. I don’t see what purpose any one could have in scratching it.

529: Well if it was blotted, can you dicover what word was there before it was blotted?
No sir. It says William Smith, and then it goes on and says he was excommunicated.

530: Can’t you see the last letters there, a “t” and an “e”?
No sir.

531: Well was not the word “apostate” formerlly written there, and then scratched out?
No sir. There is no use keeping after me on this point, for I could not tell you anything more about it than I have.

532: Who wrote that book exhibit “101”?
Well it is what it purports to be, – a church record.

533: Well who wrote it?
Well whoever was the clerk at the different conferences wrote it probably.

534: Well who was that?
I can’t say who was the clerk for I was not at all the conferences.

535: Were you at any of them?
Yes sir, I should think I was.

536: Is there any hand writing in there that you recognize as the writing of nay one in particular?
Yes sir there is.

537: Recognize some hand writing in there? Is that what I understand you to say?
Yes sir.

538: Whose is it?
Gilbert Watson’s. I think that there is his hand writing.

539: Do you say that is his hand writing?
Yes sir, I think it is.

540: He wrote that record there?
Yes sir, I think so.

541: Well now see whose signatures are to it?
Well here it is “Gilbert Watson, Clerk”.

542: Is there any other signature there?
Yes sir.

543: Well whose is it?
James J. Strang, President.

544: Did not the same hand write both signatures?
No sir I do not say so, I don’t think it was. I could not say that “James J. Strang” was written by the same hand that wrote “Gilbert Watson”.

545: Well is that James J. Strang’s own signature?
I think it is.

546: Well I would like for you to be positive on that point, – is that signature there of James J Strang, written in Strang’s own hand writing?
I say I think it is. I don’t propose to tell you anything only what I know to be the fact Mr Kelley. I don’t propose to say that other parties had the book did not do anything with it, or propose to tell what they did with it, for I did not have it all the time as I told you, and I have not looked it over after the time that I go tit first. I haven’t examined it closely since the time that it came into my possession after these parties had it that I told you about.

547: You do not know positively then whether that is James J. Strangs signature or not?
No sir, I do not. I believe it is but still I don’t know, and I will not swear positively to somrthing I don’t know.

548: Would you know James J. Strangs signature if you saw it?
I don’t know whether I would or not.

549: Look at page twenty five of exhibit “102”, and state if that is his signature there?
Well I should say it was.

550: Well is it his signature?
I could not say, but in my opinion it is. I could not be positive however, as to whether it is or not.

551: You could not swear to it?
Nos sir I could not say whether it was or was not. You sye it has been a good time, – many years, – since I saw any of Strangs writings, and so I couldn’t say positively.

552: Well Strang is your prophet and all that, and you should be able to identify his writing?
Well I know that, but that don’t make any difference, and I do not care any more about his being a prophet and all that, than you do, and you care very little I take it.

553: What is that there on page twenty five, – whose signature is that?
Well that looks natural, – that is Mr Hall’s writing, – I could tell that any where. That looks like his writing, but when it comes down to the bald naked fact I could not say positively as to that either.

554: Were these two signatures written by the same man?
I don’t know whether they were or not. I can’t say as to that, but I don’t think they were.

555: What is your best judgement with reference to the signature of Strang on page twenty five and the signature of Strang on page thirty five?
In what respect?

556: In reference to their having been written by the same man?
Well now I will tell you, –

557: Well now just answer my question?
Well now I will tell you that I would think that so far as to thats being Strang’s writing, that it was or was not. If you were to ask me if it was his writing I would have to say that I could not tell you and if you were to ask me if it was not Strangs writing, I would have to answer the same way, for I could not say it was, and I could not say it was not.

558: Well not look at exhibit “101”, on page eighty, at the signature of James J Strang, and say whether or not that is the same signature – was written by the same party as the signature of James “J” Strang on page twenty five of exhibit “102”?
I can’t say, I do not know. I am sure that I cannot tell. I notice that there is a great deal of difference in mens writing some times, for they do not always write under the same conditions, for some times they have a different kind of a pen, and they do not always write their names in the same way for that reason or other reasons. I know I don’t always write my name the same way.

559: Well are these names the same as far as the penmanship is concerned?
Well now I don’t know. In the first names the signature of the “J’s” are made above the line of writing, and in the other it is made below the line.

560: That is the fact?
Yes sir.

561: And the “S” is different?
Yes sir I would think they were different.

562: They do not appear to be the same kind of writing?
Well they do not appear to be the same writing as far as the “S” is concerned, but that don’t make any difference so far as my specifying myself that Strang wrote it or did not write it, for I did not say that he wrote it at all.

563: You said that was Hall’s signature?
Yes sir I am quite positive it is.

564: Is Hall living now?
Well he was the last time I heard anything from him.

565: He lives up there in Michigan?
What is that?

566: Hall lives up there in Michigan, don’t he?
No sir he don’t.

567: I mean the one that wrote the record?
Yes sir, he was the church recorder.

568: Well where does he live?
I think he lived in Iowa, near Shenendoah, – about five or six miles from there. He did live there I know for I was at his house once.

569: What is his business, if you know you may state what his business is or was?
He was a farmer, a well to do farmer at that.

570: He is a farmer?
Yes sir, and I think he has more of the records. He ought to have if he has not, for as clerk he had possession of them, and had them in his house at the time that he left for we had to leave the Island, and did not have a great deal of time either to get ready to leave in either. We had to get up and get, that was about the way it was, and he had some of the records in his possession at that time, and I think he has them yet.

571: What records do you refer to?
I can’t tell you. He just gathered what he had at the time up with the rest of his books and is belongings, and I think he has them yet.

572: Now what was the rule with reference to marriage in the church prior to June 27th 1844?
Well as far as I understood it a man was to have but one wife, and cleave unto her, and to none else. That was my understanding of it.

573: A man was permitted to have but one wife?
Yes sir.

574: Well suppose that he was married by a judge of a court, was that considered a good marriage?
The constitution of the Mormon church as organized by Joseph Smith did not identify or recognize any covenants made before this new and everlasting covenant had been entered into.

575: Well I could not exactly understand that?
Well in short I will say that a marriage made by what we termed out side authority was not deemed valid under that new and everlasting covenant, and was not recognized. That is it was not considered valid in the kingdom.

576: Do you say that was the law of the church prior to 1844?
Yes sir.

577: Where do you find that law?
Well there is one of the articles of the book of Covenants said that all covenants entered into before that time were done away with, and the marriage covenant was among the rest, and the question came up in the way of the question as to whether a baptism was valid made before that time, – as to whether or not it was valid before God, and it was decided that it was not valid and if a baptism was not valid it was held that a marriage was not valid.

578: I will furnish you the book Mr Hickey and ask you to be kind enought to point that section out to me?
Well I think I can.

579: Well if you can do so I will be under an obligation to you, for I would like to see it?
Well I have the book in my pocket, and if you will give me time I will try and do so.

580: Well if you can do that we will give you all the time you want to do so, for we have from now to the 15th day of July to take your testimony if it is necessary to take that much time.
Well I will try and see what I can do.

581: Look at page three hundred and twenty nine, and see if that is what you want?
No sir I don’t think it is. There is no section on that. Did you say page three hundred and twenty nine?

582: Yes sir?
Oh I was mistaken. I thought you said two hundred twenty nine. No that aint the one. It is another one. I can’t readily find the one I referred to for I have not had occasion to look at it for a long time, and I can’t find it off hand, but I have not given it up yet, for I guess I will find it. I aint so well posted on that as the Lamoni fellows are, and they have more time to look these things up than I have.

583: Well have you found it?
I have.

584: You are sure you have found it?
I think so.

585: Well read it?
Page one hundred and three, revelation twenty, – I mean section twenty, being a revelation to the church of Christ it reads, – Revelation to the Church of Christ which was established for we had to leave the Island, and did not have a great deal of time either to get ready to leave in either. We had to get up and get, that was about the way it was, and he had some of the records in his possession at that time, and I think he has them yet.

571: What records do you refer to?
I can’t tell you. He just gathered what he had at the time up with the rest of his books and his belongings, and I think he has them yet.

572: Now what was the rule with reference to marriage in the church prior to June 27th 1844?
Well as far as I understood it a man was to have but one wife, and cleave unto her, and to none else. That was my understanding of it.

573: A man was permitted to have but one wife?
Yes sir

574: Well suppose that he was married by a judge of a court, was that considered a good marriage?
The constitution of the Mormon church as organized by Joseph Smith did not identify or recognize any covenants made before this new and everlasting covenant had been entered into.

575: Well I could not exactly understand that?
Well in short I will say that a marriage made by what we termed out side authority was not deemed valid under that new and everlasting covenant, and was not recognized. That is it was not considered valid in the kingdom.

576: Do you say that was the law of the church prior to 1844?
Yes sir.

577: Where do you find that law?
Well there is one of the articles of the book of Covenants said that all covenants entered into before that time were done away with, and the marriage covenant was among the rest, and the question came up in the way of the question as to whether a baptism was valid made before that time, —as to whether or not it was valid before God, and it was decided that it was not valid and if a baptism was not valid it was held that a marriage was not valid.

578: I will furnish you the book Mr Hickey and ask you to be kind enough to point that section out to me?
Well I think I can.

579: Well if you can do so I will be under an obligation to you, for I would like to see it?
Well I have the book in my pocket, and if you will give me time I will try and do so.

580: Well if you can do that we will give you all the time you want to do so, for we have from now to the 15th day of July to take your testimony if it is necessary to take that much time.
Well I will try and see what I can do.

581: Look at page three hundred and twenty nine, and see if that is what you want?
No sir I don’t think it is. There is no section on that. Did you say page three hundred and twenty nine?

582: Yes sir?
Oh I was mistaken. I thought you said two hundred and twenty nine. No that aint the one. It is another one. I can’t readily find the one I referred to for I have not had occasion to look at it for a long time, and I can’t find it off hand, but I have not given it up yet, for I guess I will find it. I aint so well posted on that as the Lamoni follows are, and they have more time to look these things up than I have.

583: Well have you found it?
I have.

584: You are sure you have found it?
I think so.

585: Well read it?
Page one hundred and three, revelation twenty, —I mean section twenty, being a revelation to the church of Christ it reads, —”Revelation to the Church of Christ which was established in these last days, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty. Given April, 1830, in consequence of some desiring to united with the church without re-baptism, who had previously been baptized. Behold I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away with in this thing, and this is a new and an everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning. Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times, it availeth him nothing; for you cannot enter in at the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works; for it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant, and this church, and this covenant to be built upon me; even as in the days of old. Wherefore enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.”

586: That is what you referred to?
Yes sir.

587: Does that say anything about marriage?
Yes sir I take it that it does.

588: Well wherin does it refer to marriage?
Yes sir it says “behold I say unto you that all covenants”, – that is what it says, “all covenants”, “all” spells all does it not?

589: Yes sir, there is no disputing that fact that “all” spell “all”?
Well I am glad to see that you can grasp the idea. Now when I was married, –

590: Well never mind about when you were married, – I will ask you if it is not a fact that the saction which you have read in terms that cannot be mistaken explicitly refer to the question of baptism and that alone, – and does it not specially state that it does not state to anything else?
No sir it doe snot.

591: Read the first part of it if you please?
I will with pleasure, – “Behold I say unto you that all old covenants have I cause to be done away with in this thing, and this is a new and an everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning”.

592: Read the heading of it?
“Revelation to the church of Christ which was established in these last days, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty. Given April 1830 in consequence of some desiring to unite with the church without rebaptism, who had previously been baptized”. That is the way it reads.

593: Now if there is anything in there that refers to marriage, please state what it is?
I have stated it.

594: What is it?
It states “behold I say unto you that all covents have I caused to be done away with”, – I should have read it” all old covenants have I cause to be done away with in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant; even that which was from the beginning.”

595: Well is marriage an old covenant or a new one?
It is just the same as baptism, or any other covenant. I can’t see any difference. I says “all old covenants”, and marriage is as much a covenant as baptism according to my way of looking at it sir.

596: It is?
Yes sir, what is the difference?

597: Is there any difference between a man agreeing to marry a woman and agreeing to be baptized?
One agrees to be married and the oher to ne married of course.

598: Well now is that the only section there is in that book upon which you base that theory?
I base it upon that section.

599: And that is the only one?
That is the section that I base all the covenants made by any man, woman or child, on earth, so far as church matter is concerned.

600: Well now that is what you base that theory on?
It is.

601: Well now read on page three hundred and twenty nine of exhibit “J”, paragrapg one of section one hundred and eleven?
Yes sir, – all right, – I have got it.

602: Well now read that section?
The whole of it?

603: No sir, – read the heading first, and then the first paragraph of the section?
All right sir. I will do anything to please you. It begins “Section III Marriage. According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast prepared for that purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by an presiding high priest, high priest, elder or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, or being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church form marrying out of the church if it be their determination to do so, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”

604: Was that the rule under Strang’s administration?
No sir.

605: It was not?
No sir. Oh no. We discarded that. Don’t you see that ain’t no revelation. There is nothing of a revelation in that don’t you see?

606: There is not anything a revelation in your belief, unless it includes at least two women for one man, is there?
Well yes, and a little more. We want more some times.

607: Well that was the rule under Strang?
No sir.

608: Couldn’t you have two women there, – couldn’t a man have two women under Strang?
Well it depended some what on what kind of a man it was.

609: Well you taught and practiced polygamy under Strang did you not?
Yes sir.

610: It was thought to be right and so taught?
Yes sir it was taught freely and above board. Tgere was nothing secret about it.

611: That was the difference between the revelation, this revelation and the rule under Strang?
What?

612: This revelation here?
That is not a revelation. That is merely the opinion of the church. Any body can see by looking at it that it is not a revelation.

613: It was the law of the church up to 1844 was it not?
It was the rule on the church until it was superseded by something higher in the way of revelation. That is not a revelation at all. It is merely a resolution passed by human authority.

614: Well human resolutions passed by the church in its legislative capacity made the law of the church sometimes did it not?
No sir, not much.

615: Then it was not a law of the church?
Not much. The church is governed and was governed by the commandments of God. They had no business to run up conventions and synods, and pass resolutions that purported to govern the question of marriage or any thing else. We received the law from the revelations delivered from God through the prophet, and the same as they did in the days of Moses.

616: Up to 1844 there was no law on polygamy?
Yes sir there was.

617: Up to 1844?
Yes sir, there was before that.

618: Where was it found?
In the bible.

619: How many wived did you have before 1844?
I had one.

620: You only had one?
Yes sir, certainly I only had one, and she was a good one too.

621: Did you have any more?
No sir.

622: Did you have more after 1844?
More what?

623: More wives?
Yes sir, – what makes you ask these questions?

624: I ask them for you to answer them?
Well I didn’t for a good while. I waited until I found out how it was.

625: You waited to see how the land laid before you took any more?
Yes sir. – do to speak I did.

626: You waited until Strang translated the plates?
No sir I did not go into it right away? I waited until I was sure it was all right. I was as much opposed to it at first as any body, could be. There was no one ane more apposed to it at first then I was.

627: You slammed it on the floor and jumped up on it too didn’t you?
No sir I didn’t do any such a thing. Now Mr Kelley remember where you are, and keep cool, for I did inot slam them on the floor and jump on them. There is no occasion to get excited over this matter at all, – not the least occasion for it.

628: Well how long did you wait?
Wait for what?

629: How long did you wait before you took another wife?
I did not practice polygamy unto 1853. I believe that was the time.

630: Well you preached polygamy before that time did you not?
No sir I never did but once. I preached it once by special request in a nice respectable town in Woodstock or Ellsworth I think it was. I don’t remember which town it was but it was one or tother of these towns, and there was a merchant came to me to preach on it, and I did so that once, but that was the only time I believe I did so.

631: Now your attention was called to exhibit “102” on page forty seven, and you read this line “Zenas H. Gurley, proxy for Hyrum Baxter?
Yes sir.

632: Do you mean that Zenas K. Gurley had more wives than one?
No sir.

633: Well do you mean that Zenas H. Gurley was married to a man?
No sir.

634: Well that is what it reads there don’t it?
I don’t so understand it.

635: Zenas H. Gurley, – It reads that he was proxy for Hyrum Baxter? – Hyrum was a man wasn’t he?
Well of course “Hyrum” is a man’s name.

636: And Gurley was a proxy for Hyrum Baxter?
Well wait a moment and I will explain that.

637: Well I am trying to get you to explain it?
Well I will do it sir. Keep cool and don’t get excited, and I will do it. Where a man had lost his wife, and it was her intention and his to be sealed for the resurrection and life everlasting, and they had never been married, some friend boult stand up in the place of his wife and be sealed to him by proxy. She would be sealed to that may by proxy just the same as if that dead wife was alive.

638: Is that all there is to that?
Yes sir that is all there is to that.

639: Then Gurley only acted as a proxy for Baxter?
That is all there is to it. He just acted as a proxy, and he had nothing whatever to do with the woman, for she was dead I should judge, and was not living then, and had nothing to do with polygamy. That had nothing whatever to do with polygamy.

640: Do you know whether or not Baxter was dead?
No sir, I don’t know anything whatever about that. Oh Kelley you are a tough man and there is no mistake about that.

641: Well that is merely your opinion?
I know it.

642: Well let that pass. Now you said I believe in answer to one of my questions that you had more wives than one at a time?
Yes sir. I have had more than one wife.

643: At one time?
I lost my first wife and then I married another.

644: Well did you have more than one wife at the same time? That is the question I asked you?
Well Kelley you are a bad one. Ain’t you ashamed to ask that question?

645: No sir I am not ashamed to ask it and I want you to answer it.
Do you want to tantalize me, – do you want to make a laughing stock of me over the country>

646: No sir I am simply asking you the question for information. You should not hesitate to answer it for you say you glory in your faith?
Yes sir I do.

647: Well answer the question then as to whether you had more than one wife at the same time.
Yes sir I did have more than one wife at the same time.

648: Did you have more than two wives at the same time?
Now Kelley come let us reason together. Is it necessary that I should answer that question? Do you think it is necessary for me to answer that question? Do you believe that I should answer that question? I see what you want, – you mean to make a laughing stock of me over the country, – that is what you want to do? Haven’t I said that I had two wives at the same time, and ain’t that enough to implicate me?

649: Well that may be, but I want to know if you had more than two wives at the same time?
Well I don’t see that it is necessary that I should answer that question.

650: Well we think it is. We understood that you had at least three at the same time, and we want to know if it was true?
Well I will tell you that I had all that I wanted. That is as straight as a string that I had all that I wanted, and could have had more than I did if I had wanted m, but as it happened I did not want them.

651: You go them by virtue of the law of the Lord as set out by Strang?
It don’t matter how I got them, for your information I will tell you that I got them by fair dealing.

652: Well you did not deal in polygamy, – you did not go into polygamy business until you had read the law of the Lord as set forth by Strang?
Well I will tell you this, – they claimed that Joseph Smith got a revelation on that question and that Emma destroyed it, –

653: Well you never mind what they claimed or what Emma destroyed, – just answer my question, and that is all you will have to do?
Well that had something to do with it, else I would not have practiced it.

654: Well did you not say that you did not believe in polygamy up to 1853? Is that not what you said?
I did not believe in practicing it.

655: Well did you believe in it?
I say I did not believe in practicing it under the constitution (referring to Exhibit “J”.)

656: Well but under the constitution that Strang put out, you believed it was right, did you not?
Yes sir I expect I did. I know that I changed my views on question of monogamy and polygamy.

641: Well that is merely your opinion?
I know it.

642: Well let that pass. Now you said I believe in answer to one of my questions that you had more wives than one at one time?
Yes sir. I have had more than one wife.

643: At one time?
I lost my first wife and then I married another.

644: Well did you have more than one wife at the same time. That is the question I asked you?
Well Kelley you are a bad one. Ain’t you ashamed to ask that question?

645: No sir I am not ashamed to ask it and I want you to answer it?
Do you want to tantalize me, – do you want to make a laughing stock of me over the country?

646: No sir I am simply asking you the question for information. You should not hesitate to answer it for you say you glory in your faith?
Yes sir I do.

647: Well answer the question then as to whether you had more than one wife at the same time?
Yes sir I did have more than one wife at the same time.

648: Did you have more than two wives at the same time?
Now Kelley come let us reason to gether. Is it necessary that I should answer that question? Do you think it is necessary for me to answer that question? Do you believe that I should answer that question? I see what you want, – you mean to make a laughing stock of me over the country, – that is what you want to do? Haven’t I said that I had two wives at the same time, and ain’t that enough to implicate me?

649: Well that may be, but I want to know if you had more than two wives at the same time?
Well I don’t see that it is necessary that I should answer that question.”

650: Well we think it is. We understood that you had at least three at the same time, and we want to know if it was true?
Well I will tell you that I had all that I wanted. That is as straight as a string that I had all that I wanted, and could have had more than I did if I had wanted them, but as it happened I did not want them.

651: You got them by virtue of the law of the Lord as set out by Strang?
It don’t matter how I got them, for your information I will tell you that I got them by fair dealing.

652: Well you did not deal in polygamy, – you did not go into polygamy business until you had read the law of the Lord as set forth by Strang?
Well I will tell you this, – they claimed that Joseph Smith got a revelation on that question and that Emma destroyed it, –

653: Well you never mind what they claimed or what Emma Destroyed, – just answer my question, and that is all you will have to do?
Well that had something to do with it , elde I would not have practiced it.

654: Well did you not say that you did not believe in polygamy up to 1853? Is that not what you said?
I did not believe in practicing it.

655: Well did you believe in it?
I say I did not believe in practicing it under the constitution (referring to Exhibit “J”.)

656: Well but under the constitution that Strang put out, you believed it was right, did you not?
Yes sir I expect I did. I know that I changed my views on the question of monogamy and polygamy.

657: And practiced it also?
Yes sir.

658: And taught it?
Yes sir, I believe it was practiced before that time, – well I believe I preached it once.

659: How many times did you preach it?
I did not preach it but once that I remember of.

660: You do not think the Utah people have any right to practice polygamy in they way they do, do you?
Well I won’t say as to that for I do not know exactly how they do it.

661: You understand that they practice polygamy?
I understand that they did do so. They may do it yet for all I know, but my understanding is that they have gone back on it.

662: Well you understand your law don’t you?
They got a revelation through Smith.

663: Do you know that to be the fact?
Well I know that the ground they take is that they got a revelation commanding it through Joseph Smith. I know that is the ground they take.

664: Did you ever see that revelation?
Yes sir, I have seen it and read it too, but I never believed it.

665: You never read it during Joseph Smith’s life time?
No sir I did not read it until within the last few years, and I never cared anything about it for I believe it to be a fraud. I always though or felt that it was a made up concern to fit the occasion, and that Smith and nothing to do with it.

666: Well I guess that is all?
Now gentlemen I wish to explain the reason why I hesitated in answering you in relation to polygamy. I have always looked upon it in the light that the old testament enjoined, or at least countenanced polygamy, but I never went into it under that constitution.

667: Is it not a fact that you always understood that the constitution of the church up to 1844 prohibited it, and prohibited a man from having more than one wife?
Yes sir until this law was published I looked upon it as unlawful.

668: That is until the book of the Law of the Lord was published?
Yes sir and at that time this prohibition that prevailed in the church up to that time was repealed, and this became the law in its place.

669: That is all?
When this law was published it became the law of the kingdom, and superseded all other laws.

670: I only think it necessary Mr Hickey to examine you for a little bit, – for a few minutes, and then I will let you off?
Yes sir, go ahead, I am ready.

671: I believe you have not stated here, tofore to what church you belonged?
What is that?

672: I asked you Mr Hickey to state to what church you belong now?
I belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as organized on the 6th day of April 1830, and I never have joined any other church or faction or branch of a church, either that or any other since I was first baptized.

673: Do you mean by that answer that you belong to the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Not strictly speaking, and still indirectly I belong to the same church that Joseph Smith does Mr Smith and me have corresponded on this matter. He told me when he was baptized, and he never was baptized into any other church than the church that I was baptized into. That is the way it was, – we wee both baptized the only time we were ever baptized into the same church, and consequently I identify myself in a manner belonging to the same church that he belongs to. In other words we both tie our faith to the same church in a sense.

674: Now the question is, – Do you belong to the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I cannot say. I understand that they do not recognize me as a member of their church.

675: They do not recognize you, you say, as a member of their church?
No sir.

676: Well do you identify yourself as a member of their church?
From their stand point?

677: Yes or from any other stand point?
I don’t know whether I am or not. I hardly think I am a member of their church as they now have it organized. I claim to be a member of the original church, but they do not represent the original church for they have changed things and made innovations in the doctrine and practice of the original church, – they have introduced, innovations, and so I can’t endorse heir administration, and at the same time I am proud to say that I belong to the same church that Joseph does.

678: Do you know the time that Joseph Smith became a member of that church?
Of the original church do you mean?

679: Yes sir?
Do you mean the present Joseph Smith?

680: Yes sir?
Well I have it from him. He told me when he was baptized, and I have it in my journals. He either told me that personally or I could in in letters from him.

681: Well you can state the date?
Well I cannot sat positively without my journals, but if I am not greatly mistaken it was some where along about 1842. I may be mistaken about that, but I think that was the date. I remember that I asked him the question as to why he went to the re-organization, whether he went to bring order out of confusion, or whether it was to become identified with them and he told me that he went with them to bring order out of confusion, and that he had no idea of leaving the church, or belonging to any other church than the one his father baptized him into, and he told me that he was never baptized into any other church.

682: That was the reason he stated to you, that he went to the re-organization?
Yes sir.

683: Now you said something in your examination, either direct or cross about Strang baptizing him?
Ordaining him I stated. (Questions/answers 684 – 693 are missing)

694: Well something about his ordination by Strang?
Yes sir.

695: Well I would be glad for you to state what you know about that ordination?
Well you will see at once Squire, reasoning from the position that I take that after Smith was shot I critized him that is I critized as to who should be his successor

696: I asked you to explain from your knowledge. You have spoken here of Joseph’s ordination by Strang, and I want you to state what you know about that of your own knowledge? Just explain what you know about that?
 
What is the question, – these gentlemen talking has thrown me off the track?

687: I asked you to state what you know wbout the ordination of Joseph Smith, the present President of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by James J. Strang, – now what we want is what you know of your own knowledge?
Well at the death of Strang the next question with me and others was, who was the successor to him as the President of the church, Strang was dead and gone, and he was the President, or had been. Well we called a convention of the scattered saints from Beaver Island, and we got together in Wisconsin, and we got the High Priests and Seventies together, for we heard that Joseph made certain claims, and was then in Illinois, and we decided that some of us should go and see him, and in over hauling the papers that Strang had left we found a revelation, that read like this, “Thou shalt take Joseph Smith, the son of the martyr, and shalt annoint him with oil, and set him in the first Presidency of the church as we Hyrum Smith.” Well now when I found that revelation, now I said to my brethern in Wisconsin that belonged to this so called “Strangite faction”, or organization. I said, we ought to go and see him for Strang ordained him himself, and he is the highest may in authority,. You will understand that the book of Covenants made provision for three men who were to compose the First Presidency. There was first the prophet himself, who was ordained by angels, and then he chose two men as his counsellors, and he can ordain these counsellors to the priest hood which they hold by virtue of his ordination, but no man can ordain him to the office of prophet which he holds, – that ordination has to come from on high. No man can ordain him to that priest hood or office, but he can ordain his counsellors to their priest hood, or any one to any other priest hood in the church. This ordination of his counsellors has to come through revelation, – or I mean they had to be designated by revelation, and after they are designated, he ordains them. Well when that revelation came of course it made it the duty of Strang to go and ordain this boy and place him in the place that Hyrum Smith occupied before he was murdered and at the same time God told Strang that William Marks should act with him as a co-adjuator, and so Marks was ordained to act with this boy, and now with us the question was, did he do it? That was the situation, and I said that if he did it then I would know whether to find the successor in the office of President to the Presidency, but it would be one holding a lower order of the priest hood than Strang held, for he received his ordination from on high at the hand of angels. Well I went to Nauvoo, and I found young Joe Smith on an Island in the river chopping wood, and I came to him with the revelation that God had given Strang, and I went to him and told him what I had come for. You see all the time it was a question with us as to whether he had been ordained, whether Strang had ordained him, for if an angel had ordained him as the successor of Strang with all the power that Strand held, why he would hold an office co-equal with that which the original Smith and Strang held, and we-wanted to find that out, and when I got to him I asked him this question, I said “Joseph have you been ordained by an angel”, and at first he declined to answer, but finally he said “in time you will know”, and then I said “did Strang ordain you”, and then he said “Strang came to my house and when he was there I was waken sick with the ear ache, and went to bed”., and that is all I know about it” he said. Well I could not get any more out of him, and could not find out whether or not he had been ordained by Strang, at that time, or at any other time for that matter, but I learned that he had not been ordained by angels to the office of prophet. Well after I had done all that I could I took the cars and went home, and shortly after I arrived home again I came in contact with three gentlemen who had been associated with Mr Strang while he was there on the island, and one of them was a man that was always around Strang, and if any body could get anything out of Strang he could, for they were both Free Masons, and I will say further that they were both first rate good fellows too. Well the way they come to me was because they heard I had been down to see young Joseph I suppose, for we he came to me he said “Hickey, I understand you have been to Nauvoo to see young Joe”. One of these gentlemen was Dr Smith from Utah, –

698: Well the question I asked you was what you knew about the ordination of Young Joseph Smith by Strang?
Well be patient, fir I am getting to it. I will tell all that I know about that, and nothing more, but I would like to do it in my own way.

699: Well go ahead then?
Well that is what I want, – I want to state these things in my own way.

700: Well I am giving you scope in the matter, wishing that you will get at it in your own way?
Well as I stated what I got back to Black River Falls in Wisconsin I met these three gentlemen as I said before, and one of them said “Hickey you have been down to see Young Joe Smith I understand”, and I said “I have been there”, and then he said, “How did he treat you”< and I said “He treated me like a gentleman.” Now I am giving you my best recollection of what was said, and I do not pretend to give you the exact language that any of us used, but it was something like what I have stated. Well I said that I had been there, and had seen him, and he had treated me like a gentleman. I told him what had passed between us, and all about what he told me about Strang’s being there, and his being taken with the ear ache and going to bed, and as quick as I spoke the words this gentleman that I have mentioned who was such a friend of Strang’s spoke up and said to me “that is just exactly what Strang tole me, and he went into his room and ordained him while was asleep”. Now William Marks the very man that claimed to have ordained Young Joe when he was nothing but a high priest, told me that he and Strang went down there to ordain that boy to the priest hood in Plano Illinois. Now that is the proof.

701: William Marks told you that in Plano, Illinois?
Yes sir.

702: Is that the story of what you know about that ordination?
Yes sir.

703: Now then I will ask you the further question as to whether or not that is all you know about the ordination of Young Joseph Smith by Strang?
No sir.

704: Well now what else do you know?
Well you might say that I don’t know that, for that is circumstantial evidence. Now that is what I know, and what I claim is that Joseph Smith, – about his being ordained, is first by Peter, James and John, – Now I never saw Peter James or John, but I believe at the same time that Strang was ordained, and that Joseph Smith was ordained in the first instance in the same way, and that Strang ordained young Joe in that manner. That is one of the tings that a man can believe without seeing in the same way that I believe that Benjamin Harrison is President of the United States although I never saw him, – did not see him inducted into office yet there is not a doubt in my mind but that he was. There are lots of things in this life you have to take on faith. Now I have given you the evidence as far as I have gone.

705: Well if you have any other answer to make please make it?
 

706: What did he tell you?
Well he told other parties in Wisconsin, independently of what he told me independent of me, – far away from me, and without my word, – without my saying a word to them. This man told me the same thing, – he said when Strang got back he told me he ordained him when he was asleep”, “but” said Strang,” don’t tell him anything about it until the time comes”. Now whether he told him that I do not know, and I don’t know that I would tell it now, but at any rate that gives strong confirmation to my belief that the evidence is all on the side of the question – that Strang did ordain young Joe in the manner I have stated. Now I don’t know that I have it all just right, but that is all that I can remember about it just now.

707: Well that is all. Re-cross examination by P.P. Kelley, –
 

708: You spoke about William Smith being up there in Wisconsin where Strang’s church was located at one time.
Yes sir he was up there at one time.

709: Did you see him there?
I believe I did.

710: You said something about his trying to become a patriarch, – the patriarch of the church?
Yes sir.

711: Where was that?
That was up at Beaver Island.

712: He was up there you said trying to induce Strang to appoint him as patriarch of the church?
Yes sir.

713: Well was he ever appointed to that office?
I don’t know.

714: What is that?
I say I don’t know. All I know is that he came up there and claimed the office on the ground that he was the brother of Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, but Mr Strang told him he could not have that office, because it belonged to young Joseph, and that is the fact, because we identify him now as the patriarch.

715: Well if you identify Young Joseph as you call him as the patriarch, now how does it come that Strang ordained William Smith as the Patriarch of the church.
I don’t say that he did that. I say I don’t know anything about that.

716: Well don’t you know what he did?
No sir I don’t know anything about it. I will say though that I don’t believe that Strang ever ordained him as patriarch.

717: Well if he did it would be all right wouldn’t it, for Strang would not do anything but what was right?
I presume not.

718: Well the Lord would not tell him to-do anything that was wrong would he?
Tell why not to do anything that was wrong?

719: Tell Strang not to do anything that was wrong?
Well I do right and I do wrong sometimes, and so do you too I guess. We all do wrong at times, for no man does right at all times and I do not undertake to say when the Lord, – and I do not undertake to critize the Lord and say – that he does wrong sometimes, when he does this or that thing. But I can say this that I believe what the Lord does is right, no matter how it seems to us at the time. Now there is the instance of the Lord commanding Abraham, –

720: Well never mind what he commanded Abraham to do, – that is not an answer to my question?
I think it, – he commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, and that in itself would seem to be wrong, but we know it was right, for the Lord did not mean that Abraham should kill Isaac, – he was simply told to do so to test his obedience, and when the time came Abraham so found it.

721: Well now are you through, if you are I will ask you to read from exhibit “IGI” on page eighty three, at the bottom page three, (speaking to Mr Southern) we offer this for the purpose of showing that this book marked exhibit “101” is incompetent for any purpose?
 

722: Well I will offer it and let the court say whether or not it is admissable. I will read it myself. First I will as you Mr Hickey who it was made the erasures or marks across that part of the page, – across there and here?
I don’t know.

723: And who wrote out here in the margin of this page “I don’t understand this”? Did you do that?
I would not wonder if I did. I could not wonder if it was me.

724: You don’t know but what it was?
No sir. If you will let me read it I will tell you. (Witness takes the book) William Smith was ordained under the hands of President Strang and Counsellor Smith to the office of patriarch and father unto the whole church, according to his right by revelation and blessing; also to be an apostle and special witness of the name of Christ in all the world so long as his strength shall be sufficient for both offices, holding his former place in the quorom of Twelve”.

725: That which you have read is erased by pen marks being drawn through it, is it not?
Yes sir.

726: Now when was it that Strang went down and ordained Young Joseph as the patriarch of the church?
I don’t know what month it was or the day of the month.

727: Do you know what year it was?
I know when the revelation was given.

728: When was it given?
In November 1846.

729: Then revelation was given then that Joseph should be the patriarch of the church?
It was November 6th 1846.

730: Well it was after that that Strang went down and ordained him?
I don’t know when he went down, but I presume of course that it was after the time that the revelation was received.

731: He could not have ordained him before that, could he?
I could not say for I never compared the thing, and you will have to settle that yourself, or give me time to look it up.

718: Well the Lord would not tell him to-do anything that was wrong would he?
Tell why not to do anything that was wrong?

719: Tell Strang not to do anything that was wrong?
Well I do right and I do wrong sometimes, and so do you to I guess. We all do wrong at times, for no man does right at all times and I do not undertake to say when the Lord, – and I do not under take to critize the Lord and say- that he does wrong sometimes, when he does this or that thing. But I can say this that I believe what the Lord does is right, no matter how it seems to us at the time. Now there is the instance of the Lord commanding Abraham, –

720: Well never mind what he commanded Abraham to do, – that is not an answer to my question?
I think it, – he commanded Abraham to kill Isaac, and that in itself would seem to be wrong, but we know it was right, for the Lord did not mean that Abraham should kill Isaac, – he was imply told to do so to test this obedience, and when the time came Abraham so found it.

721: Well now are you through, if you are I will ask you to read from exhibit “101” on page eighty three, at the bottom page three, (speaking to Mr Southern) we offer this for the purpose of showing that this book marked exhibit “101” is incompetent for any purpose?
 

722: Well I will offer it and let the court say whether or not it is admissable. I will read it myself. First I will ask you Mr Hickey who it was made the erasures or marks across that part of the page, – across there and here?
I don’t know.

723: And who wrote out here in the margin of this page “I don’t understand this”? Did you do that?
I would not wonder if I did. I should not wonder if it was me.

724: You don’t know but what it was?
No sir. If you will let me read it I will tell you. (Witness takes the book) William Smith was ordained under the hands of President Strang and Counsellor Smith to the office of patriarch and father unto the whole church, according to his right by revelation and blessing; also to be an apostle and special witness of the name of Christ in all the world so long as his strength shall be sufficient for both offices, holding his former place in the Quorom of Twelve”.

725: That which you have read is erased by pen marks being drawn through it, is it not?
Yes sir.

726: No when was it that Strang went down and ordained Young Joseph as the patriarch of the church?
I don’t know what month it was or the day of the month.

727: Do you know what year it was?
I know when the revelation was given.

728: When was it given?
In November 1846.

729: Then revelation was given then that Joseph should be the patriarch of the church?
It was November 6th 1846.

730: Well it was after that that Strang went down and ordained him?
I don’t know when he went down, but I presume of course that it was after the time that the revelation was received.

731: He could not have ordained him before that, could he?
I could not say for I never compared the thing, and you will have to settle that yourself, or give me time to look it up.

732: The revelation which you say authorized Joseph Smith to be ordained as the partriarch of the church, you say that was given in the month of November 1846?
Yes sir. That is the way that reads.

733: In May 1846 at the minutes of the conference here recorded on the eighty second and eighty third pages of exhibit “101”, is shows that Strang (???) was ordained the patriarch of the church?
It don’t show any such a thing.

734: Who does it show was ordained the patriarch?
Smith, – not Strang.

735: Well it shows that William Smith was ordained the patriarch of the church?
Yes sir. Well what of it? What if it does?

736: Well it seems tha the Lord did not take much time to change his opinion, for it seems that he changed things around considerably, between May and November.
Well you probably know all about it.

737: Well now do you think that record is correct?
Well I think this, – I don’t think that William Smith was ordained the chief patriarch of the whole church, and Joseph at the same time.

738: There is but one patriarch at a time is there not?
Yes sir there is more than one patriarch, – there may be half a dozen patriarchs in the church at the same time, so far as that goes. I don’t know anything to prevent the appointment of more than one patriarch in the church at a time so far as that is concerned.

739: But this says “ordained a patriarch and father unto the whole church?
Well what if it does?

740: Well that would be the chief muck-a-much would not it?
Well I have nothing to go by but what that says there, and if that says so I would take it that he was ordained to that office. I would take it that he was ordained to the office that that states there.

741: Well that is what it says. I have read to you that it said, and that means the chief man in that office don’t it?
Yes sir.

742: Then William Smith was ordained as the chief patriarch of the church?
I presume so.

743: Well was Joseph Smith ordained to the same thing?
There is the revelation, – read it and see what it says.

744: Well I haven’t been able to read that revelation for the reason that I have not been able to find it yet?
Well if you want my views of it I can give them to you without much trouble.

745: Well do you say it is correct or not?
I don’t know whether it is correct or not any more than you do.

746: And you don’t know who wrote it?
No sir I don’t pretend to say who wrote it. I know where it belongs and who uses it, and if you want to know I will tell you sir, – it belongs to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

747: Now I believe that you stated that you were in Voree in May 1846 at that meeting there did you not?
I don’t recollect that I said so.

748: Well were you there?
I could not say whether I was there in 1846 or not.

749: Well that was when William Smith came around wasn’t it, and as you stated approached Strang to make him Patriarch of the church, and when Strang as you stated refused to do so on the ground that it was Young Joseph’s position, then it was that William went around amongst the membership trying to raise trouble.
Well I can’t remember dates for all these things happened a good while ago. I can’t remember with positive accuracy any of these things as to the date of the month, the month, or even the year in many instances. I have told you that time and again.

750: Well were you there in 1846 at all?
I don’t even know that I was there in 1846 at all, I might have been there, and it is likely I was. No, I wasn’t there at all in 1846. No I wasn’t there at all. I remember that now. I am pretty sure I was not there at all.

751: Well you think it is quite an honor to belong to the same church with Joseph Smith, don’t you?
No sir I don’t.

752: Well I simply asked you the question because I was under the impression that you did?
No sir I don’t think it is quite an honor or any part of an honor to back him up in all his dirty work, – not by a good deal.

753: Then you do not say it is an honor to belong to the same church with him?
I say it is an honor to belong to the church, – to that church that I was baptized into in 1830.

754: You mean the church that you were originally baptized into, that was organized in 1830, – not that you were baptized into in 1830?
Yes sir.

755: Well now does the church that Joseph Smith belonged to teach that a man could have more wives than one?
No sir.

756: It does not teach that?
Certainly not. They were opposed to polygamy. There is no doubt of that fact at all.

757: And the church that you belong to teaches the right to practice polygamy does it not?
Well, I have told you all about that, and what do you want to go over it again. I don’t know what makes you come back at the polygamy business unless it is that you want to tantalize me.

758: Well I want to know?
I told you that Mr Strang taught polygamy. We don’t deny that.

759: And you teach it now and believe in it don’t you?
There you go again.

760: Well just answer the question?
If I am ask the question regarding polygamy I will say that I believe it is a cardinal doctrine given by Moses. It was given by the Almighty to Moses I should say.

761: Joseph Smith did not teach it?
No sir.

762: You never heard him say anything about it in the way of advocating it?
No sir, I never heard him preach a sermon on it in my life. I met him and I did not hear him say anything about it.

763: How many times did you meet him?
I met him one or twice in his life time.

764: Did you ever hear a preacher in that church, the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints preach polygamy since Joseph Smith was the President of that church?
Do you mean Young Joseph?

765: Yes sir?
I don’t remember that I have.

766: Or in the original church before the death of Joseph Smith, either?
Well I don’t remember particularly how that was. There might have been something of the kind.

767: Well it is a fact is it not that you and Joseph Smith and W.W. Blair do not speak. You would not speak to them or shake hands with them if you were to meet them here today?
Yes sir, I would not, and I would not go across the road to hear them preach either.

768: If Joseph Smith or Blair were to walk in the office here, the same seance would occur that took place here this morning when E.L. Kelley spoke to you and offered you his hand?
No sir I would not shake hands with him. I would do just as I did here to day, and I will say that I would not speak to any man that trains with them?

769: Now you say that Strang went down from Voree, Wisconsin to see young Joseph Smith, and took-the revelation from young Joseph’s father to Strang, – that is the letter which has been introduced here in evidence – and the revelation from the Lord to Strang, and read it to Joseph?
I said that?

770: Yes sir is that not what you said?
Great Scott. Now look here Kelley if you think I said any such a thing, you are only deluding yourself, for I never said any such a thing at all. Great Scott to say that I said that, – I never said any such a thing in the world.

771: Well what did you say?
I said that L.D. Hickey went down to see young Joe, and found him on an island cutting wood, that is what I said. I said that I found him on an island in the Mississippi river cutting wood, and that I took down the revelation that was given to Strang.

772: Is that all that L.D. Hickey said?
Yes sir.

773: L.D. Hickey is yourself?
Yes sir.

774: Well is that the only revelation that you took down.
I took down the revelation that was given to Strang by the Martyr, and the revelation that Strang had concerning young Joe, and that I went down there and not Strang.

775: Was it you sure enough?
Certainly it was me, – it wasn’t any body else. You can bet your life on that that it was me that went and no body else.

776: Then you went down yourself?
I did beyond a doubt.

777: And you took the revelation from young Joe’s father to Strang?
I did. I took the revelation that the original Simon pure Joseph Smith sent to Strang, and the revelation from the Lord that Strang had concerning young Joe, – I took them both with me, and I read them both to him.

778: Then you want to go on record as saying that Strang, – that Joseph Smith gave Strang a revelation, and at the same time Strang got a revelation from the Lord to go down into Illinois and ordain his boy as Patriarch in the church?
To ordain him as one of the Presidents in the church? as was Hyrum Smith. That is what I said, and I want to put you on record as saying that very thing, and you can publisk it from Dan to Bersheba if you please, for that is what I say and nothing else.

779: You say that Joseph Smith sent a revelation to Strang and sent a revelation that he should go down into Illinois and ordain Young Joseph Smith as President of the church, – he took them at the same time?
No sir I did not at first it was Strang went down first and then after Strangs death and we found this revelation to Strang regarding young Joseph I went down to where young Joe was, and read them both to him. I thought that you meant the revelations were both taken down in the same year and in the same month, and I took them both down myself after Strangs death.

780: Well now will you find for me at some time between now and the 15th of July the revelation from Joseph Smith to Strang, and the one from the Lord to Strang?
With the greatest pleasure in the world brother Kelley, you shall have them if you will send me the postage.

781: Well I would like for you to find them while you are here in Independence?
Do you mean the originals?

782: Yes sir.
Well I don’t know that I can do that I can give you copies of them.

783: Have you got them?
Well sir, I have them printed, and my book cost me money, and if you want the pamphlets you can pay for them. I have been giving them away for forty years, and it is about the time that I was getting a little money out of them I think.

784: Well if you have them here I would like to see them.
Do you want to see it?

785: Yes sir, that is what I said.
Well when are you going away?

786: I don’t know the way things are running whether I shall go before September?
Well I don’t know about that. You may get away sooner if you are expecting me to stay that long for I hardly think I shall stay here that long.

787: Well now you went down to see young Joseph Smith about these revelations, one from Joseph Smith to Strang, and the other from the Lord?
Well sir they were both from the Lord.

788: Well what made you say that one was from Joseph Smith.
Because it was from the Lord.

789: You said it was from Joseph Smith?
Well it was from the Lord never the less, the Lord gave it to Joseph Smith, and he sent it to Strang.

790: Well then Strang had two means of communication at the same time with the Lord? Is that what you say?
It was the same modus operandi. Smith had this revelation, or this vision in which he got the revelation, and the Lord communicated the fact to him that he was to be killed, and Strang was to be appointed his successor, and Joseph communicated this revelation to Strang, and then afterwards Strang has a revelation from the Lord in regard to Young Joseph, and he went down to see him about it, and that was the time that Strang ordained Young Joe.

791: That was the time that Strang ordained Young Joseph whilst he was in bed asleep?
Yes sir.

792: Who wrote out the revelation that came through Joseph Smith to Strang?
I don’t know.

793: Well was that in Joseph Smith’s handwriting?
Joseph signed his name to it.

794: Who wrote out the other one?
Which one?

795: The one that Strang got from the Lord in reference to Young Joseph?
Well now let me see.

796: Did that come already written?
No that did not come like young Joe’s revelations. Mr. Strang as the President of the church and as a prophet stood.

797: Well I am asking you how it came to him, who wrote the revelation to Strang?
I don’t know.

798: You saw it did you not?
I did.

799: And you did not know the hand writing when you read it?
I don’t know whether I did or not.

800: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I don’t remember how that was. I haven’t any distinct recollection about it.

801: Well I am asking you for your best recollection as to by whom it was written, – whose hand writing it was in?
I do not remember, – that is some thing that has passed from my memory.

802: Now when you read that to Joseph Smith, he refused to have anything to do with it did he not?
I don’t know what he did.

803: Well did he not refuse to have anything to do with it?
When I read it to him he did not have much to say about it one way or the other.

804: Is it not a fact that he said if the Lord wanted him to do anything he, -the Lord, – would probably tell him what to do and when to do it?
No sir.

805: Do you swear that Joseph Smith did not say that.
No sir I don’t remember that he did say that. He might have said so but if he did I don’t remember about it.

806: Well did he not say that in substance?
Well I would not swear nary way – I don’t remember just what he did say.

807: He did not have any hand in it at all did he?
Understand me sir this way. When I read it to him hi listened to it, and did not say much about it. Now that is my recollection of it. When I had read it to him I had done my duty. I did not go there expecting to baptize him or lead him any where, or make him do anything. I just went there to read to him those papers, and that was all I went there for.

808: You both belonged to the same church?
Yes sir I expect we did. I don’t know anything to the contrary.

809: You were around the country preaching one way in one place, and another way in another place?
Well that is all right, – you will find Methodists and Baptists too that will do the same thing. One will preach one way and another another way.

810: Well will you, – can you find one Methodist that will preach monogamy, and another that will preach polygamy.
Well the fact is that while they might not preach it, they will practice it.

811: In your town do they do that?
Yes sir.

812: You swear positively to what?
Yes sir, and they have been catched at it too. Well now that is on the side, and I don’t care about its going down, – ask your question again please, and we will get down to business.?

813: I want to know if you can name a Methodist preacher, that preached polygamy as a true doctrine of the church, and one that teaches monogamy as the doctrine of the Methodist church?
Nor sir I don’t know of any Methodist preacher that preaches it as I said before. They may practice it, but when it comes to preaching it they leave it alone.

814: Well Joseph Smith did not have anything to do with your mission down there to see him, except to hear what you said, and then he would not have anything to do with it. Is that not the fact Mr Hickey?
Yes sir.

815: That is the fact about the cause of your mission down to see him, and its results?
Yes sir, for he did not care any more for me than I did for him.

816: And is that not the reason you won’t speak to him?
No sir that is not the reason. I won’t speak to him or any man that has laboured under him, or is with him and believes as he does. There is a man who has labored under him for twenty five years that I don’t speak to, and I won’t speak to them because they have slandered me. and I will never give him rest, or my children until he has rendered me justice. They have slandered me and a man with whom I labored long and earnestly and they cannot be at peace with me until they undo the wrong they have done me and the ones that are dead and beyond the reach of their malevolence. Now they never persecuted me only in that way, and that is my reason for saying what I do. Now while I feel that way I believe that Joseph Smith is as good and moral a man as I am, but he has slandered me, and I will never give him rest or my children untim he renders me justice. They have lied to much about Mr Strang for me to easily forget or forgive what they have said.

817: You refuse to speak to your own son in Coldwater, don’t you for something or other?
I would refuse to speak to my own wife if she had cut up dog, and degraded herself, when my son will come to me and speak to me as they should I will speak to him. I have a son there who is an incorrigible inebriate, and a bad boy, and I have labored with him and it has been unavailing, and I love me son as well as any father loves his son. Yes sir I love my son the same as any other man loves his son, –

818: Well that will do. That is all I have to ask you.
Thalk you. I am glad to hear it.