"Another Good Man": Anthony W. Ivins and the Defeat of Reed Smoot

"Another Good Man": Anthony W. Ivins and the Defeat of Reed Smoot

By KRISTEN SMART ROGERS

When in 1932 Utah senator Reed Smoot lost the seat that he had held for nearly thirty years, the moment was a bitter one for him Years later, he was still brooding over his defeat It was in an automobile at a funeral that Smoot reportedly fixed the blame for the loss on one of his fellow apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)."Bro Ivins had me defeated all over Utah before I knew a thing about it," he exclaimed.1

"Brother Ivins" was Anthony Woodward Ivins, a staunch Democrat who in 1932 was also first counselor in the LDS First Presidency.2 The man is largely forgotten now, but at the time Ivins had significant power, and during that election he was in a position to do some political damage He had the complete love and trust of his cousin, church president Heber J Grant, who was absent from Utah during the weeks before the election and had left Ivins to mind the store.3 At the same time, Ivins was no fan of Smoot's Whe n someone worried aloud what would happen if Smoot were not re-elected, Ivins shrugged it off "Oh, we will find another good man," he said.4 Behind that diplomatic but telling statement lay years of partisan conflict with Smoot

Despite Smoot's accusation, he likely 'would have lost the election with or without Ivins working against him. In 1932 the Great Depression had put Republican incumbents on precarious ground. Having suffered through three years of a dismal economy, the electorate had grow n angry at Herbert Hoover and the Republicans; just at this time of desperation the charismatic and innovative Franklin D Roosevelt came onto the scene Perhaps worst of all for Smoot was the fact that some felt that the Hawley-Smoot tariff—his favorite accomplishment—had in fact precipitated the depression.

Although in retrospect a Republican crash seems to have been inevitable, at the beginning of the campaign no one could foresee the conclusion; after all, Smoot had become something of a political institution and had easily won his last two victories. But the election was doubtful enough that the campaign grew heated, and both parties fought vigorously The question is: What was the part of Democrat Anthony Ivins in the "red hot"5 election of 1932?

An answer to the question must include a deeper look at the man himself. Amazingly, at Ivins's death in 1934 this now-obscure counselor in the First Presidency was called the most widely known and best-beloved man in Utah. "He was the most remarkable all around man I ever knew," J. Reuben Clark said at his funeral.6 Eulogies noted his tolerance, judgment, self-sacrifice, gentleness, wisdom, and modesty "N o absent one in need of a friend ever went undefended, if Anthony W Ivins was present," wrote fellow apostle and ardent Republican Richard R. Lyman.7 Former Utah governor and Secretary ofWar George Dern said, "I have long regarded him as Utah's foremost citizen. His contribution to Utah's economic, cultural and spiritual 'well-being is incalculable But above all else, I would put his service in promoting internal harmony."8

Despite these accolades, Smoot was, according to conventional standards, far more visible and influential than Ivins; he loomed large not only in the Utah power structure but in Washington as well. After beginning his career as a Provo businessman and then becoming an apostle in the LDS church in 1900, he had run for the Senate in 1902 After his election, he did have to cross one major hurdle: Opponents challenged his right to the seat, claiming that his connections to the LDS church and polygamy—although Smoot himself was not a polygamist—disqualified him. He emerged victorious from the polygamy hearings, however, and went on to dominate Utah politics for nearly thirty years During that time, he served as chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and was able to secure many benefits for his supporters, including federal appointments, tariffs on Utah products, and funding for public projects.9

But the formidable Smoot must have recognized a potency in Anthony Ivins s influence, or he 'would not have thought that Ivins could engineer the election Ivins had developed his own personal and political power through wide experience and a natural talent for leadership. He had been an actual pioneer, having traveled to Utah with his parents in 1853 as a baby At age nine, he went with his family to colonize St George, where his skills as a cowboy and outdoorsman became legendary.10 In 1875 the church called him to explore Arizona and Mexico with six other men; this expedition lasted nine months and spanned 3,000 miles. He would serve three more church missions, one to the Navajos and Pueblos of New Mexico, one to Mexico City, and one as head of the Mormon colonies in Mexico

Between these church assignments, however, Tony Ivins became manager of the Mojave Land and Cattle Company and part-owner of the Kaibab Cattle Company, the two largest cattle outfits on the Arizona Strip. He also performed often as an actor on the St. George stage and was known for his speaking and writing. And he rose to prominence in civic affairs, holding the positions of constable, county and city attorney (he had studied law by campfire light when he was on the range), county recorder, sheriff, city councilor, tax collector, and mayor. A friend of the Shivwits Indians, he became more deeply connected to them when he sent a letter to the federal government detailing their neglected and destitute condition—and also explaining that they were interfering with cattle operations on the Kaipairowits Plateau. In return he got an apology, a check, and an appointment as Indian agent. With the check he bought land on the Santa Clara River where the Shivwits Reservation remains today.11

Ivins's civic positions hint at what was a primary interest and talent of his: politics. In 1888, when Utah was moving away from the old People's and Liberal parties, Ivins and his brother-in-law Edward H Snow12 went around Washington County organizing the "Sagebrush Democrats." Later, when LDS church leaders decided to make Utah into a two-party state by visiting certain wards and suggesting to members which party to join, he refused to switch parties. According to Frank Jonas, only rarely did anyone object or refuse to comply with the instructions But when apostle Francis Lyman came to St. George to push the Republican party, Ivins "got up in the meeting and protested vigorously at the church trying to tell the members of the Church how to vote." Reportedly, Washington County never once voted Republican as long as he and Ed Snow lived there.13

According to local lore, Ivins was indeed an effective party man One anecdote tells of the time the Republicans sent a professional campaigner named Marshall to southern Utah. After a rousing rally in St. George, he planned to journey on to the already-Republican Kanab for his next meeting Tony Ivins offered horses, a buckboard, a camp outfit, and himself to take Marshall on the five-day round trip Dressed in his working clothes, Ivins looked like any other cowboy. So during the two days on the trail, Marshall preached Republicanism to this rustic, and by the time they reached Kanab he probably thought he'd made a convert.

But Tony had been listening carefully to all the arguments, and, just as he had figured they would, the people of Kanab insisted on a debate between the local boy and the campaigner The sophisticated Mr Marshall spoke first and made all sorts of eloquent promises, including that somehow the Republicans would hand the much-disputed Arizona Strip over to Utah. After he sat down, Ivins stood up in his khakis and wide-brimmed Stetson—receiving an ovation just for his plain clothing—and in prompt order deflated his opponent by telling the story of Satan offering Christ the kingdoms of the world "Do you know that Satan did not own a thimble full of God's green earth," he said, "but that the humble person he "was talking to had created it?" That did it. The audience leaped to their feet, clapping and whistling their appreciation at Tony's sarcastic brilliance Although Ivins went on to "finish the skinning" and his speech, the debate was essentially over. 14

Ivins no doubt felt that the Democratic party best represented his political philosophy, a philosophy that he explained in various speeches He believed that government existed to protect its people from enemies within and without, to regulate commerce, to build highways, to provide free schools, and to relieve local disasters. He abhorred subsidies and special favors, believed that the right to vote was a sacred privilege, and thought that all too often elected officials proved to be "rogues and swindlers."

His partisanship was not absolute or dogmatic, however. Ivins preached that "good and wise men" were to be found in all parties and religions. In fact, he spoke against the "baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally." Party politics, he said, served "always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration." Although parties "are useful....there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be...to mitigate and assuage" the spirit of party. In particular, Ivins warned against control of parties by "artful and enterprising" minorities.15

In making this statement, perhaps he had in mind, partly, Smoot's Federal Bunch, the political machine that had so effectively controlled Utah politics during the first years of the century. In any case, Ivins's stated political philosophy often found no mirror in the beliefs and actions of Senator Smoot For instance, according to biographer Milton R Merrill, Smoot had somewhat less reverence for the franchise; he was not enamored of the "popular clamor" and was opposed to the direct election of senators. In particular, he felt that the suffrage of women was a dangerous thing And special favors were Smoot's specialty—at least that was how his Democratic opponents saw it.16

But in the early years, when Ivins was a rising political star in Washington County, the conflicts between him and Smoot were yet to surface. In 1894, southern Utah voters sent their favorite Democrat to the state constitutional convention, where he argued for woman suffrage and the consolidation of the state university system. Ivins's intelligence and abilities won him widespread admiration at the convention, gaining him so much attention that newspapers predicted his party would nominate him for governor in the state's first election.17

But fate—or possibly the Republicans—would intervene . Th e Republican-leaning LDS First Presidency of Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, and George Q Cannon called Ivins to direct the Mormon colonies in Mexico Although Ivins's organizational and leadership skills and his previous experience in Mexico made him eminently qualified for the job, many saw the call as a move to get this popular Democrat out of politics. As for Ivins, he had many reasons, not all relating to his political ambitions, for not wanting to go But he obeyed and went.18

That significant chapter of his life lasted twelve years Perhaps it was during this period that Ivins first felt some negativity toward Smoot—because of the polygamy issue. As head of the Mexican colonies, it was Ivins's responsibility to marry polygamous couples. During the Smoot hearings, church leaders asked Ivins to testify to Congress that the Mormons in Mexico were not practicing plural marriage "I will not go for two reasons," he said. "First, it [is] none of the Senate's business what the Mormons [are] doing in Mexico and in the second place I refuse to perjure myself"19

After his call to be a Mormon apostle in 1907, Ivins would have many occasions to disagree with Smoot's approach to politics. In fact, it was soon after Ivins arrived in Salt Lake City that Smoot waged a fight to defeat Prohibition—in opposition to the feelings of nearly the entire church membership. The senator mobilized his formidable political machine against Prohibition in order to please non-Mormons , but his stance whipped the Mormon community into a "moral frenzy"; some even called for Smoot's dismissal from the apostleship When the political winds changed, however, Smoot changed his tune and in 1916 became the most "ardent prohibitionist of all."20 Ivins may well have detested this kind of political maneuvering.

But it was another issue, the League of Nations, that revealed the gulf between Ivins and Smoot The senator opposed the League as proposed by Woodrow Wilson; in fact, he generally opposed Wilson himself During October general conference in 1916 he noted in his diary, "Ivins made a peace speech virtually endorsing Wilson's Mexican policy. During recess I saw pres Smith and suggested he call on Pres Pratt of the Mexican Mission to report conditions in Mexico and that would give him a chance to in part answer Ivins. This he did...."21 In 1919 Smoot wrote, "I see Wilson lauded at the [church general] Conference by Apostle Ivins and endorsed by Pres. Grant. I can't help but think it a mistake."22

The debate over the League of Nations brought a more direct confrontation. Most of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles supported Wilson's League, and the issue found its way into several sermons. In July 1919 Ivins spoke at a stake conference in Ogden urging his listeners to support the League At the end of his talk, stake president L W Shurtliff called for a vote by "those of you who agree with his remarks and who -wish for peace in the world." Apparently, all in the congregation wished for peace; all raised their hands.

Immediately the Republican press pounced upon Ivins. The Salt Lake Citizen printed a sarcastic editorial entitled "Smooth-Ivins Debate Would Shed Much Light." "Events seem to be shaping themselves for a magnificent debate between our senior senator and Apostle Ivins, one standing by the old constitution and the other seeking to convince himself...and others that the league covenant is a revelation from on high," the paper wrote. Ivins, who had spent so much time south of the Rio Grande in the "mental wilds" of Mexico, was obviously twisting the constitution, the editorial hinted. Perhaps at the conclusion of a Smoot-Ivins debate the presiding officer could say, "those of you who agree with the remarks of Senator Smoot, wish for peace, uphold the constitution of the United States and are in favor of the Fourth of July, will please say 'aye' and cry 'down with Ivins and war.'"23

The Herald Republican, meantime, called Ivins's speech "one of the most partisan political speeches ever delivered in or out of a church in Utah. Mr. Ivins took an unfair advantage of his audience by forcing a vote under a false issue between patriotism and disloyalty. The system is the cheapest form of political trickery and is entirely unworthy of the high office Mr Ivins hold [sic] in his church."24

Ivins responded to both by letter To the Herald, he explained the speech and his position. He had only referred to the League in four speeches, and he had not made a truly political address for more than twenty years, he said. He had never asked people to vote upon the peace treaty or the League; to the contrary, he had advised them against any resolutions endorsing it Finally, he explained his support: "I endorse the league because I believe it to be the greatest forward movement for recognition of the universal brother hood of God, and brother hood of man that the world has ever known."25

To the Citizen, on the other hand, he sent a caustic letter calling the editorial writer a jackass. A debate between Smoot and himself would not be interesting, he wrote, because the two were not that far apart in their opinions "If the purpose of your article is to create a controversy between Senator Smoot and me, it is a dismal failure, for no such controversy will occur." He copied the letter to Smoot.26

Actually, a debate between the two apostles probably would have been interesting. The League certainly remained an issue among the Quorum of the Twelve. After October conference 1919, Smoot bemoaned President Heber J Grant's statement in support of the League and the unfortunate fact that the League had been mentioned in prayer The next year the same issue erupted in meetings of the Twelve. O n July 29 the men spent two hours discussing the League and Smoot's use of scriptures to support his political views. Democrat Stephen L. Richards joined Ivins in condemning Smoot On August 5 the Twelve discussed it again, with Ivins and others insisting that Smoot act in accord with the decision of the quorum to support the League. President Grant appears to have been a moderating influence, and when he expressed the belief that each member should act according to his convictions, the apostles dropped the issue.27

In other partisan issues Ivins and Smoot tended to line up on opposite sides In 1920 presiding bishop Charles Nibley, a strong Republican and a key confidant and political strategist for Smoot, was indicted for conspiring in restraint of trade in the sugar industry Smoot, worried that the indictment would affect his upcoming election, pressured Grant to speak in Nibley's defense at general conference. Ivins strongly opposed that action; nevertheless, Grant did make a statement asking members to withhold judgment. The statement displeased some Democrats, Smoot wrote.28

In a diary entry on October 14, 1920, Smoot indicated a pattern of opposition from Ivins: At a quorum meeting "[Democrat] BH Roberts attacks and false statements made against me were brought up by Pres Grant... As usual Bro Ivins jumped in the breach for Roberts." At another meeting, Ivins spoke out against the church spending money to keep the partisan Herald Republican afloat. "I thought it best to say nothing," Smoot wrote. In time, Ivins's arguments that it was improper for the church to support a partisan, money-draining newspaper convinced Grant to sell the Herald.29

In 1928 Smoot recorded that Ivins had "in unmeasured terms condemned" Ernest Bamberger, a Republican candidate for senator, questioning the man's honesty and character "I answered him as he thought it was improper for me to support such a man." Though he probably spoke to his brethren with self-assurance, Smoot spent a sleepless night with Ivins's criticism running through his mind To his diary Smoot confessed that he himself recognized his candidate's failings, but he felt he had to do his Republican duty and support him.30

According to his public statements, Ivins would have deplored placing the good of the party over the need for "good and wise men" in office. But in 1932, with Smoot up for re-election, he may well have thought that the welfare of the Democratic party coincided with a need to "find another good man" for the senate At October conference that year 31 he said,

Is there not some responsibility resting upon the citizenship of the United States because of the indifference they have manifested, particularly during the past decade, in regard to those who are to represent them in Congress of our nation, the legislatures of our states and the boards of direction in the municipalities of those states and counties?

I believe I will say it—I believe that in many instances we have become so accustomed to and so committed to party rule, to arrangements made by professional politicians, regardless of the real voice and desire of the people, that we have felt it our duty to follow them whether they are right or wrong.Just a word of solemn warning: I say to you regardless of party politics, regardless of your past affiliations, in this time of extremity, and it is a time of extremity, see to it that honest men, wise men, capable men are sent to represent you in the organizations of the country.

Decrying the drift toward a paternal government that "will so intrench itself that the people will become powerless to disrupt it," he warned of enemies within the government and the government's policy of pouring money into programs and agencies.32 Adding to the weight of this speech was the fact that Ivins, who had been called to the First Presidency in 1921, was the presiding authority at the conference; for some weeks church president Heber J. Grant had been ill and in Chicago for surgery.

Ivins's remarks were not given in a vacuum but during an intense campaign. Indeed, it would be a watershed election as the nation desperately sought a way out of the mire of the depression The 1930 election, when Republicans had lost thirty seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate, had demonstrated the beginnings of voter discontent. By 1932 many Americans had begun to blame Herbert Hoover in a bitter, almost personal way for their suffering, while they looked to Roosevelt as almost a savior. In the midst of this turmoil, the Democrats in Utah had nominated a University of Utah professor named Elbert Thomas to run against the state's political giant, Reed Smoot.

Around the time of conference, a young church official—A Hamer Reiser, general secretary of the LDS General Sunday School Union Board—produced and paid for a flyer for the Elbert Thomas campaign. Reiser, who had known the candidate for several years, had actually placed Thomas's name in nomination at the Democratic convention. In a masterpiece of political "reasoning," Reiser set forth these arguments in the flyer: Although Reiser had voted for Smoot in the past, now "I don't want to be a party to anything that will mar his long career in public life." If elected, Smoot would probably be in the minority party and so would lose chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, would meet "frustration and defeat" on every hand, and would suffer a loss of "prestige and influence." It was not "kind or considerate" to return a man of his age to the Senate under these circumstances, and even though the Republican party had probably forced Smoot to run, he should not be asked to sacrifice so much to save the party The voters could rescue him, though A vote against him would be a "vote of kindness and appreciation," while a vote for him would ask him to bear "humiliation, embarrassment, disappointment and defeat." "To let him devote the remaining years of his life to that service so dear to his heart [meaning the apostleship] would be the kindest and most unselfish way we could find of showing appreciation for his past service." The flyer then explained why Thomas would be an excellent successor.

After the handbill was distributed, according to Reiser, "All hell broke loose." Many Utahns were shocked at this young upstart's challenge of a state icon, and they questioned whether Reiser could have produced the flyer alone. "People thought, 'That kid doesn't know anything about that. He's a dummy. He hasn't got ideas like that.'" Many therefore assumed that higher-level authorities were behind the handbill, and rumors grew that church leaders, particularly President Grant, did not want Smoot re-elected. Yet, despite speculations that someone had put "that kid" up to the job, Reiser always maintained that the flyer had been his own idea and his own work. He claimed that he had not even consulted Elbert Thomas about it.

Still, many believed that Anthony Ivins must have been behind the handbill. His involvement seemed even more plausible after a widely seen and discussed incident After the flyer became public, Reiser had been severely shunned; for instance, when he got on the elevator in the Church Office Building, others would get off and he would ride alone. As he later said, he lost friends and made enemies. One day Republican apostle Richard Lyman approached Reiser, angrily slapped his chest with the back of his hand, and said, "That was a dirty insult to Brother Smoot for you to -write that."

In the middle of this lonely time, Reiser recalled,

One morning as I walked into the Church Office Building through those double doors, I was coming in the front door and in from the inside coming out was President Anthony W Ivins Now President Ivins had never spoken to me in his life or my life till this time, and he stopped me before he reached the foyer full of people waiting to go up on the elevator. He said, so that nobody could hear what he said, taking hold of my hands with both of his hands and shaking them very firmly, "If they don't leave you alone,you come to me."

It was "the first time anybody had been friendly" to him. Nobody heard the words, but they saw the gesture, and within five minutes the whole building knew what had happened The rumors flew Reiser believed that "somebody might have tried to pin it [the flyer] on Brother Ivins because of that.... But President Ivins hadn't said a thing to me but that before or after. We'd never been together when we could have occasion to speak... I didn't know -what he thought or what his position was or how he felt toward Brother Smoot at all."34 This last statement is surprising. If true, it suggests that in public Ivins was extremely discreet in his political views.

Smoot, however, had not experienced Ivins as politically discreet. After the election he called Reiser into his office, where the two met for the first time According to Reiser, Smoot asked him to confess who had persuaded him to write the flyer. "It's all my -work, my ideas, I take the full responsibility for it and nobody else had anything to do with it," Reiser responded.

"My, I wish I could believe that," Smoot said For him, the evidence against Ivins was clear. "There are certain people whose son went up and down this state telling lies about me," he said. According to Reiser, the "certain people" were Anthony and his wife Libby, and their son was Grant Ivins, who had campaigned hard against Smoot But, Reiser told Smoot, "I had no part in that."35

Several questions about this exchange remain unanswered Did Reiser mean only that he himself had not "gone up and down the state," or did he mean that he had no part in discussing and planning that part of the campaign for Thomas? Was Grant Ivins really telling lies, or did Smoot simply perceive criticism as defamation? And, most provocatively, what "part," if any, did Anthony Ivins play in his son's campaign?

A further provocative statement comes from Warwick Lamoreaux, -who had seconded the nomination of Elbert Thomas. Speaking of 1932, he said, "This was a year for young people to get involved There was the son of Anthony W Ivins, whom I loved and respected; I often went to 'Uncle Tony' for advice. His son, Grant Ivins, and A. Hamer Reiser were active and enthusiastic participants in the Democratic party."36 Almost certainly, given the context of the statement, Anthony's "advice" included political guidance It also seems likely that the three young Democrats, Lamoreaux, Grant Ivins, and Reiser, were closely associated in their campaign efforts. That Reiser professed not to know Ivins's politics is puzzling. And the exact role that Anthony Ivins played in advising this group—his son in particular—is simply not known.

We do know, however, the steps that Ivins took to smooth over the Reiser controversy. Smoot's camp, of course, was alarmed by the rumors that President Grant wanted the senator defeated These rumors included the assumption that Grant wanted to make Smoot his second counselor in the First Presidency; counselor Charles Nibley had died in December 1931. Seeking an antidote to these rumors, Smoot supporters wrote to Grant and asked him to issue a statement of support for their candidate. One LDS church member wrote that Smoot, the instrument who had so ably advanced the cause of the church, was "being crucified by HIS OWN PEOPLE, on a political cross constructed of lies, slander and vituperation." The letter called for "immediate action" and a "powerful effort" to ensure Smoot's victory.37

Th e rumors disturbed President Grant. H e wrote to Smoot and explained that he thought perhaps he should make a statement to clear the matter up, but then he wondered whether he might do more harm than good So he referred the matter to the man he most trusted "I am sending Tone a copy of this letter," he wrote, "and think it best that after you have considered what I have said that you talk it over with him."38

Back in Salt Lake, "Tone" Ivins was concerned both about the election and about the health of his well-loved cousin October 15 he wrote to Robert Judd, Grant's son-in-law, in Chicago, expressing concern that Grant's worries over the political furor were delaying his recovery. And the furor was great, Ivins wrote Both parties were using smear tactics, and the campaign had become, as campaigns usually did, one of "crimination and recrimination." In particular, he criticized the Republicans for trying to pull Grant into the fray. "Personally I think it was a great mistake that the telegram sent by our Senator's secretary should have gone to the President at all," he wrote.39

That same day, Grant's daughter Ray wrote from Chicago to "Uncle Tone." She too was upset at the rumors that so worried her father Her letter, though affectionate, is slightly remonstrative: "Now Uncle Tone, I'm a Democrat, but I suppose not a very good one, for men count more than party with me. I still cling to democracy because of the days when you were my teacher in this line." From her perspective in Chicago, it may have appeared that Ivins was putting partisanship above loyalty to her father Whatever the case, she felt that Ivins was the only one who could amend the situation. "In justice to father it should not be made to appear that his [Smoot's] defeat is what father desires...," she wrote. "We are helpless in this matter Such help can only come from you."40

Perhaps Ivins felt a need to exonerate himself, for he later wrote to Grant, "Pay no attention to what may be said until you have heard both sides of the story." Ray was right, though; as the presiding church authority as well as perhaps the most visible Democrat in the church, he was the natural person to assume the job of damage control—both for Grant and for the party. It was not an easy task. Writing to Cousin Heber, he explained, "The past week has been the most trying that I have ever experienced." He reported that when he had received his copy of Grant's letter to Smoot, he had waited for Smoot to come "talk it over" as Grant had suggested But Smoot did not appear Ivins then took the letter to the meeting of the Twelve, but again Smoot did not show up. "In fact," Ivins wrote with a tone of subtle criticism, "I do not think he has attended a meeting since you went away." But at the meeting Ivins was able to extract from the apostles a consensus that the president should not make a statement in support of Smoot Fiercely Republican Rudger Clawson was the only dissenter.41 Later, Ivins did talk with Smoot about the matter, and Smoot promised not to make Grant's letter public.

But then Ivins received a letter from the Republican headquarters "appealing to the President of the Church to come out boldly in defense of his Church and people" — meaning to Ivins that he should "boldly advocate the election of Senator Smoot, notwithstanding the fact that...the majority of [the people] do not seem to be in favor of his reelection." To Ivins, of course, Grant's illness was only one of the reasons why a bold defense of Smoot would be a bad idea. Perhaps he thought public support for Smoot would not only damage the Democrats but would be bad public relations for the church as well He refused to forward the letter to Grant, and he told "them not to send such to the President but to leave him entirely alone."42

Later, Ivins bitterly reported to his cousin that this letter had been planned by apostles Rudger Clawson and Richard Lyman. The two had asked apostle James E. Talmage to join with them in preparing it and sending it. When Talmage asked why they had not conferred with Ivins first, Lyman replied that they had not thought the first counselor would approve of it They were right, of course. 43

Ivins's actions during this time were typical of him First, he was no doubt genuinely concerned for his cousin's welfare.44 Next, as a Democrat he probably truly did not want an official church statement in support of Smoot published. Finally, philosophically at least, he seemed to believe that the church should not interfere in politics Prominent Mormon Democrat James H Moyle said that "Until Q Reuben] Clark there was no Church interference in politics in Grant's administration, because Ivins was the one man who would not stand for that. He had a real influence with President

Grant, but after the death of Ivins in 1934 and during the Clark period, noninterference 'was a thing of the past."45 Moyle was undoubtedly selective in his memory, as was Ivins in his personal attitude toward church interference; certainly church support of the League of Nations 'was an instance of "interference" that Ivins approved of. So in the Smoot case, it is hard to say how much Ivins acted out of partisan feeling and how much he acted out of his perception of the whole picture.

A further puzzle lies in his statement to Judd, "I do not hesitate if the question is asked of me to say that we do not desire that Senator Smoot be not elected, as some politicians have stated, but that we want him returned to the Senate. I do not however urge that people vote for him unless their better judgment tells them it is the proper thing to do."45 According to James H Moyle, Ivins never supported Smoot politically. Was the need to appear united more important than the need to tell the truth? Or did "we" stand for something beyond Ivins as an individual: an indication of his loyalty to Grant, who did want Smoot re-elected, or his sense of responsibility in representing the First Presidency? Whatever the reason, it must have been personally painful for Ivins to profess support for Smoot. He counteracted those statements—and the tendency of the parties to pull the church into politics—with an equable solution. He recommended (and no doubt wrote) a public statement to be signed by the First Presidency stating that the church had no position in the election and did not "attempt to influence the choice of any voter." The statement, to be published in the Salt Lake papers, urged among church officers "an attitude of neutrality and fairness that shall justify no criticism or offense on the part of the opposing candidates, or parties...." 47

In responding to the proposal, Grant telegraphed, "Heartily approve publication," but he insisted that the statement make clear that the election would have no bearing on the selection of a new second counselor, since another man had already been called to the position "Shall be pleased to have my name with yours and [Rudger] Clawsons," Grant wired.48 A couple of days later, Grant wrote that Ivins had been inspired in handling this "difficult matter which came before you for a decision. My heart has gone out to you time and time again, knowing...how unfair men and women are in political matters." He expressed astonishment at "Richard's course"— presumably meaning Richard Lyman's part in the letter from Republican headquarters. He reflected on the costs of loyalty to the church then closed with an indication of the feelings he often expressed: "You have been as dear to me as a brother, and you have my unbounded love and confidence With a letter full and running over with love for you and all your loved ones, I am as ever,Your affectionate cousin."49

With the publication of the statement just a few days before the election, Ivins probably thought the election complications were over. As it turned out, though, the Democrats would still need some damage control Ivins had been in correspondence with J. Reuben Clark, the man selected but as yet unnamed as the new second counselor. Clark was in Mexico at the time, winding up his job as ambassador to that country before coming to Utah in his new position The letters that passed between the two were warm: Clark talked about the Mexican situation, invited Ivins for a visit, and—perhaps in the spirit of polite demurral—expressed that he was "just a little bit scared" that he could be really helpful as counselor.50

Ivins, in return, remarked on the boiling "political pot" and reported the nomination of Elbert D.Thomas, commenting that Thomas probably could not be elected.51 Acknowledging the political climate in Utah, Clark wrote, "Speaking frankly and confidentially, I would prefer not to come to Conference unless I were to go immediately into the Presidency, because if I -were there in the middle of the campaign, I should probably be asked to get into it, and I have felt that I would prefer not to take part in what will probably be a very heated campaign just before entering the Presidency."52

However, Clark changed his mind when it became clear that the Republicans were in trouble. "The Senator had decided he wished me to speak," and he did In a letter to Ivins explaining this, Clark said that he tried to make his statement of support "in a form as not to give just cause for any feeling of any personal offense. That some of my Democratic friends may possibly not approve of it, I suppose I must expect; if so, I am sorry."

Clark must have known that his Democratic friends would not approve. In his statement he wrote, "We shall overcome this depression by the same methods our pioneer fathers and mothers used to overcome hard times, that is, by working and saving We must not add to our burdens in doing this by voting into power a party pledged to politics destructive of the very vitals of our economic life." Further, "Nor to these two only [Hoover and Smoot] must we Republicans give our party loyalty and support, but to every other Republican on the entire ticket, Congressmen, legislators, State and county officers, down to the last and least of them."53

Ivins's response can only be guessed. However, this communication from Clark is the last letter to or from him in the Ivins papers. Apparently, Ivins felt no need or desire to reply. Perhaps, where he once sent letters "Wit h assurances of confidence, esteem, and the fullest fraternity, [from] Your brother,"54 those feelings had altered with Clark's decision to campaign publicly.

He 'would have yet another nuisance to wrestle with President Grant returned to Salt Lake City on November 3 and promptly announced, "As a citizen, I am a staunch supporter of the Senator and President Hoover and intend to vote for them." Although he added that the church itself was neutral, in the eyes of many the real damage had been done. On e woman, Nellie U Hendricks, wrote to Grant that she was sick about the statement.53 Ivins patiently regrouped O n November 6, he sent a telegram to W W Mitchell, a student who had also written to Grant. "A statement will appear in tomorrow's Tribune signed by Pres. Grant in which he says that any statement made by him or any other church official, other than that published in the Salt Lake papers of Oct 29 and 30 is only his personal preference and is not intended to influence members of the church."56

On the day before the election, then, the statement of church neutrality reappeared in the papers with this preface: "The following statement, previously published, is the only official statement of the presidency of the Church regarding the attitude of the Church in the coming election." Appended to the document was a clarification: "Any other statement by the president or any other officers of the Church is his personal preference and is not intended to influence members of the Church, [signed] Heber J Grant."57

The next day, of course, Smoot was swept out of office along with Republicans nationwide To the end of his life Smoot mourned that some of his brethren had turned against him, and apparently he blamed Ivins most. But he was wrong to think that Ivins could have affected the election either way. Political historian Jean Bickmore White believes that Smoot misunderstood how profoundly the depression had affected both the state and the nation "Conservative dogma and high tariffs are no match for the charisma of a Franklin D. Roosevelt in a time of desperation. [Smoot's] time had passed; he did not realize it; and he found a scapegoat in Anthony Ivins."58 Marriner S. Eccles, who later became a close economic adviser to FDR, recorded an instance of Smoot's inability to understand the crisis In 1932, the election year, he had met Smoot "when conditions in the West •were desperate. I tried to make him see the need for speedy government action on a substantial scale to assist the debtors of the area. But it was clear that Smoot did not understand what I was trying to say, nor for my part could I understand him."59

Although Smoot may not have understood the urgency of the depression, he was right that Ivins had sufficient political ardor to desire his defeat, and Ivins may have had underlying personal motivations as well Like other church leaders, he had to choose how to balance his individual opinions with his public role—a challenge that he no doubt could not perfectly meet.Yet the evidence suggests that in the election of 1932 his values of harmony and church neutrality took precedence over his partisan leanings If it is true that Hamer Reiser did not even know Ivins's political opinions; if it is true that Ivins chose to communicate President Grant's view by saying, "we want [Smoot] returned to the senate"; if it is true that, as James Moyle reported, Ivins "expressed the convictions of a real Democrat" only in private, and then only with "great reticence,"60 then he probably was not prone to using his high church position to benefit his party.

It is possible that Ivins managed or advised his son Grant's efforts to defeat Smoot If so, the degree of his involvement is hard to assess In light of the available evidence, one might speculate that he merely gave his son general counsel encouraging good judgment. One piece of evidence lies in his response to a letter accusing him of advocating the Republican party— which was itself an indication that his politics were not obvious to the public He wrote, "I have never told anyone how to vote, not my own sons and daughters, my only counsel has been to investigate and vote as they desired."61

A comparison of Ivins's political activities as a First Presidency member with those of J Reuben Clark is instructive in evaluating Smoot's accusation. After becoming a counselor in the First Presidency, Clark continued to campaign for the Republicans; during the election of 1936 he coordinated the church's efforts to defeat Roosevelt. According to biographer Michael Quinn, Clark saw his role in the First Presidency, in part, as a spokesman for Republican, conservative causes. His strategies for pushing conservative policies within the church caused some to speak of his "dictatorial attitude." Ivins's daughter Florence records the occasion when the First Presidency abruptly released presiding bishop Sylvester Q Cannon, most likely because of his support of government welfare "That is another thing that would not have happened if your father had been here," people told Florence.62

Ivins no doubt struggled 'with his own partisanship as he worked to promote "internal harmony" in the midst of political controversy Yet it appears that he refrained from using his position to give his party an edge In fact, it may be his commitment to church neutrality and discretion that has caused this greatly talented man to remain in the background of historical studies. And perhaps it was his ability to subordinate his personal agenda to larger considerations that in 1921 caused staunch Republican Charles Nibley to tell Heber Grant—who was worried that if he chose his cousin as a counselor he would create an all-Democrat First Presidency—that it would not matter. For, Nibley said, "Elder Ivins was the wisest man among the apostles."63

NOTES

Kristen S Rogers is the associate editor of the Utah Historical Quarterly. The author is grateful to Thomas Alexander, Jill Mulvay Derr.A Hamer Reiser Jr., William and Donna Smart, and Jean Bickmore White for their comments and contributions Unless otherwise noted, all photos are from USHS collections

1 Florence Ivins Hyde,"My Story," manuscript copy, MS A-1874, Utah State Historical Society.

2 Articles in LDS church magazines comprise the majority of biographical work done on Ivins Scholarly works frequently draw upon his papers, but he has not himself been the subject of extensive research. This study draws largely upon the Anthony W Ivins collection (MS B-2) housed at the Utah State Historical Society

3 See Anthony W Ivins diary, January 1, 1927-September 12, 1932, MS B-2:5, USHS, for more on Grant's absence.

4 Milton R Merrill, Reed Smoot: Apostle in Politics (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1990), 136 Democrat James H. Moyle wrote to Franklin Roosevelt briefing him on the situation in Utah and calling Ivins "a very able and potential factor in the affairs of Utah He has always been a very fine and loyal Democrat, and by the way is not friendly to Senator Smoot politically and I don't think he has ever voted for him or advocated his election." See James Henry Moyle, Mormon Democrat: The Religious and Political Memoirs ofJames Henry Moyle, ed Gene Sessions (Salt Lake City: Signature Books in association with Smith Research Associates, 1998),261

5 AnthonyW.Ivins to HeberJ. Grant, October 26,1932, MS B-2:9:7, USHS.

6 Quoted in David Dryden, "Biographical Essays on Three General Authorities of the Early Twentieth Century:Anthony W Ivins, George F Richards, and Stephen L Richards," Task Papers in LDS History, No 11 (Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church ofjesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976),21

7 Richard R Lyman, "President Anthony W Ivins," reprint from Relief Society Magazine, November 1934, Pamphlet 13922, USHS Lyman had been a Democrat until about 1903 See D Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997) 668-69.

8 Thomas Cottam Romney, The Mormon Colonies in Mexico (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938), 133; "Great Mormon Personalities, An Interview Between Prof. M. Wilford Poulson and Instructor Jack R. Gibb (B.Y.U.)," radio program, KSL, April 3, 1938, Pamphlet 2697, USHS "Although it would seem unlikely, Ivins was, from all appearances, universally loved," wrote the researcher who catalogued the Ivins papers SeeAnn Hinckley,"Biographical Notes" for Anthony Ivins collection, USHS

9 For a biography of Smoot, see Milton R. Merrill, Reed Smoot: Apostle in Politics (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1989) His diaries are available in Reed Smoot, In the World:The Diaries of Reed Smoot, ed Harvard S Heath (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996)

10 John Koller,"Tony Ivins:Son of Saintland," in Golden West, January 1970

11 Hinckley, "Biographical Notes," 2 Koller, "Tony Ivins"; Anthony Ivins, "A Mystery Solved," in Preston Nibley, ed., Pioneer Stories (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1943), 206 In one election, Ivins was simultaneously elected county attorney, county recorder, and sheriff; see Grant Ivins and Florence Ivins Hyde interview,June 27,1991, MS A-6047, USHS

12 Ivins married Elizabeth Ashby Snow (Libby),daughter ofErastus Snow,in 1878.

13 Frank H Jonas, "Utah, the Different State," in Frank H.Jonas, ed., Politics in the American West (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1969), 328-29. Grant Ivins and Florence Ivins Hyde interview, June 27, 1991,MSA-6047, Folder 1,USHS.

14 John G M Ivins [?],untitled typescript sketch, MS B-2:l:2:28,1-3

15 Ibid., 4; Franklin S Harris, comp., Anthony W. Ivins Sermons, typescript, MS B-2:15, 90, 94, 117; MS B-2:15:4:5, 1,3,5

16 Merrill, Reed Smoot, 98,207,202, 230.

17 Grant Ivins and Florence I Hyde interview

18 See H. Grant Ivins et al., reading group discussion on polygamy, September 26, 1970, MS A-6180, USHS Wilford Woodruff's politics are somewhat unclear; Michael Quinn believes that, based on the actions of his administration, his actual affiliation was Republican Smith and Cannon were both ardent Republicans See Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, 333-34

19 Ivins had helped write into the state constitution a law against polygamy (more accurately termed polygyny), and he chafed at his responsibility to marry couples who would then return to Utah as lawbreakers According to his son Grant, one time, after he had encountered some men who had plural wives in Mexico, he said,"Those fellows make me so mad When men will come to Mexico to break the law of the country under which they live and where they came for citizenship I have no respect for them." He also hated the church's cover-up of post-Manifesto polygamy.According to his son, he said that when he was called to Mexico "George Q Cannon said to me,'Now Brother Ivins, if you have occasion to meet Porfirio Diaz, the President of Mexico, we want you tell him that we are NOT practicing polygamy in Mexico.'""So he went down there with a feeling of disgust toward George Q Cannon," Grant Ivins said; see H Grant Ivins et al reading group discussion; Grant Ivins and Florence I Hyde interview; "Polygamy in Mexico as Practiced by the Mormon Church," typescript, 1970, Heber Grant Ivins collection, 1:16, USHS Diaz probably already knew about the polygamists One memoirist writes that in the 1880s "a delegation sought audience with Porfirio Diaz, concerning his attitude toward the practice of 'plurality of wives' in his country After explaining that Mexico had no laws which would interfere with their family practices, President Diaz added, 'It does not matter to Mexico whether you drive your horses tandem or four abreast.'"InAnnie R.Johnson, Heartbeats of Colonia Diaz (Salt Lake City:author-published, 1972), 14

As almost the only non-polygamist in the Mormon colonies, Ivins came under intense pressure to practice plural marriage himself; visiting authorities would tell his family that they would not reach the "Celestial Kingdom" unless he did But he refused "He was not the type to break any law,particularly one he had helped draw up himself," his daughter Florence said;see Florence Ivins Hyde,"My Story,"n.d., MS A-1874, USHS Of his wife, Libby, Ivins said, "No one has, no one ever will, no one ever can take her place";see Lyman,"President AnthonyW Ivins."

20 Merrill, Reed Smoot, 160-61,189-91

21 Smoot, In the World, 331 Wilson's policy during the Mexican revolution was not tough-minded enough for Smoot

22 Ibid., 416

23 Citizen,August 16, 1919.

24 Salt Lake Herald Republican, July 23,1919

25 Ibid.,August 15, 1919 Ivins went on to say,"I shall continue to work for, and preach peace on earth good will to all men, and advocate all that makes for this condition I shall show my Americanism by sustaining, and holding up the hands of the men who bear the burdens of state and national affairs, regardless of their political affiliation, as I have always done, and stand by and defend every churchman who is striving to establish Christ's kingdom on earth, regardless of sect or creed If this is fooling the people let the Herald 'make the most of it.'"

26 Ivins to E P Gallagher, Citizen editor, September 22, 1919, MS B-2:9:9:5 "I admit that there are many Burros in Mexico," he wrote, "they bear the burdens of the country by day, and keep one awake with their midnight serenade, but I am obliged to admit that I have never heard ajackass bray louder, and to less effect, than the one who brays through your paper." For more on the League controversy, seeJames B Allen, "Personal Faith and Public Policy: Some Timely Observations on the League of Nations Controversy in Utah," BYU Studies 14:1 (Autumn 1973), 77-98 Perhaps Ivins's public stance was mild in comparison to that of other church leaders; although Allen examines the split among church leaders, he does not list Ivins as one of the key players in the debate

27 Smoot, In the World, 422, 449-51

28 Ibid., 457;Thomas Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (reprint ed.: Urbana and Chicago:University of Illinois Press, 1996), 83-84.

29 Smoot, In the World, 511; Merrill, Reed Smoot, 138 Church financial support for the Herald had begun with Joseph F Smith, a strong Republican After Grant became church president, Charles Nibley had approached him, explained the "arrangement," and convinced him to continue the support

30 Smoot, In the World, 692-93 One of Ivins's objections may have been that Bamberger was a leader of the Order of Sevens, a semi-secret Republican organization. For a discussion of the church's relationship to politics during the 1920s,seeAlexander, Mormonism in Transition, 50-59.

31 In Heber J Grant's absence, Ivins was "in charge" of conference He showed his independent mind by making several changes to the way things were usually done. See Ivins to Grant, October 10, 1932, MS B-2:9:7.

32 Harris, Ivins Sermons, 88-90 Ivins warned that if present policies continued the government would be in the banking, farming, and livestock businesses and would never pay its debts—an ironic statement given the fact that FDR's administration would soon redefine the meaning of deficit spending During the campaign, however, Roosevelt had not yet solidified his New Deal policies and, like others, was calling for a balanced budget as the solution to the depression; see Marriner S Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal Recollections (reprint ed.: NewYork:Alfred A Knopf, 1966), 95-99

33 Albert Hamer Reiser Oral History, interview by William G Hartley, 1974, typescript, vol 4, appendix,James Moyle Oral History Program,Archives, Historical Department of the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City This section of the Reiser oral history was closed to research until 1999 Without its evidence available, some historians have also assumed that Ivins either instigated or condoned the flyer; telephone conversation with Harvard Heath, February 1999

34 Reiser Oral History, 21-33

35 Ibid

36 Dan E.Jones,"Utah Politics 1926-1932" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1968).

37 W L Candland to Grant, October 14, 1932, MS B-2:9:7 See also "Rudger" [probably Clawson] to Heber J Grant, October 12, 1932, MS B-2:9:7 A telegram from the senator's secretary sent sometime before October 15 presumably covered the same ground; see Ivins to Robert L Judd, October 15, 1932, MS B-2:9:7

38 Grant to Smoot, October 10, 1932, MS B-2:9:7.Three days later, Grant wrote to Ivins to say that he would need additional surgery and that Ivins was the only person he had told—an indication of the trust between the two men; see Grant to Ivins, October 13, 1932 Close friends and family called Ivins "Tone."

39 Ivins toJudd, October 15,1932, MS B-2:9:7

40 Ray [Susan Rachel] to Ivins, October 15, 1932, MS B-2:9:7 She closed her letter with affection: "Oh Uncle Tone, father and you are so closely held in my heart You are so busy now that I can't talk to you as I once did,but you can never know how much you have meant in my life."

41 Ivins to HeberJ. Grant, October 21,1932,MS B-2:9:7.

42 Ivins toJudd, October 15, 1932

43 Ivins to Grant, October 21, 1932

44 "I have never been more disturbed than when we learned of your relapse, and never happier than when the change came," he wrote Grant "I thought of what might happen in case you did not recover, and felt that I did not care to live to see it."See Ivins to Grant, October 21,1932

45 Moyle Mormon Democrat, 173 Thomas Alexander points out that, although Ivins may have exercised discretion in public, he was extremely partisan in meetings of the First Presidency and Twelve during the 1920s; letter to author, April 21, 1999 Alexander believes that Ivins was as partisan as Smoot "Except when he could find a moral question like prohibition or machine politics, however, Ivins's principal contribution was to add balance rather than to drive the church into the Democratic column"; see Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 57

46 Ivins toJudd, October 15,1932

47 Deseret News, October 31, 1932 Ivins's approach to this election would contrast sharply with the approach the church took four years later, after his death With Grant's approval, the conservative J Reuben Clark campaigned openly for Alfred Landon and wrote editorials for the Deseret News urging the defeat of Roosevelt; see Brian Q Cannon, "Mormons and the New Deal:The 1936 Presidential Election in Utah," Utah Historical Quarterly 67 (Winter 1999), 4-22

48 Grant to Ivins, October 23, 1932, MS B-2:9:7 Because of the vacancy in the First Presidency, Clawson, president of the Quorum of theTwelve Apostles,signed the statement

49 Grant to Ivins, October 26, 1932,MS B-2:9:7.The statement ran in the October 31,1932, edition of the Deseret News, and read as follows:

"Reports have reached us to the effect that our names are being used by politicians in support of, and against, candidates and parties in the present political campaign.

"We wish it distinctly understood that in our official capacity we neither aid nor oppose any candidates or party.

"We offer no counsel to members of the Church which may be considered partisan in its nature.We urge all to a dispassionate, intelligent and honest use of the ballot, but we do not attempt to influence the choice of any voter.

"Moreover, we discountenance the use of any Church agency or facility in favor of or against any partisan or political interest We trust that all Church authorities and officers will cooperate with us in an effort to maintain, officially, an attitude of neutrality and fairness that shall justify no criticism or offense on the part of the opposing candidates, or parties,in the present election.

"In view of reports that are being circulated, we desire to say that the result of the forthcoming election will have no bearing on the selection of a counselor in the presidency of the church, for the reason that the selection was made months ago and accepted, subject only to the approval of the Church membership when the proper time comes. "[signed] HeberJ Grant,Anthony W Ivins,Rudger Clawson"

50 J. Reuben Clark to Ivins, October 14, 1932, MS B-2:9:6.

51 Ivins to Clark, September 5,1932, MS B-2:9:6

52 Clark to Ivins,August 28,1932, MS B-2:9:6

53 Clark to Ivins,with enclosures, November 1, 1932, MS B-2:9:6

54 Ivins to Clark, September 5, 1932

55 Deseret News, November 3, 1932. Nellie U. Hendricks to Heber J. Grant, November 4, 1932, MS B2:9:7

56 Ivins toWW MitcheU, November 6, 1932, MS B-2:9:7

57 Deseret News, November 7, 1932

58 Jean BickmoreWhite, written comments to author,August 18, 1999 '''

59 Eccles, Beckoning Frontiers, 92 Eccles, who became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, argued strenuously for massive government spending—but only in times of depression—to stimulate the economy FDR adopted many but not all of his ideas Under the New Deal the nation recovered partially from the depression, but recovery became complete only with the government spending ofWorldWar II

60 Moyle, Mormon Democrat, 224.

61 Quoted in Dryden,"Biographical Essays,"18

62 Florence Ivins Hyde, notes, MS A-1874, USHS For more on Clark's political activities, see D Michael Quinn,J Reuben Clark: The ChurchYears (Provo, UT: BrighamYoung University Press, 1983) and Cannon, "Mormons and the New Deal." Sylvester Cannon's release in 1938 was probably the culmination of his ongoing disagreement with Clark over government welfare; see Garth L Mangum and Bruce D Blumell, The Mormons' War on Poverty (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1993), 119-24, 143 Cannon became a member of theTwelve in October 1939.

63 Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 118