Utah Historical Quarterly, Volume 76, Number 4, 2008

314 IN THIS ISSUE

316

Iosepa: The Hawaiian Experience in Settling the Mormon West

By Richard H. Jackson and Mark W. Jackson

338 A History of Children’s Hospitals in Utah

By Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller

357 Seeing is Believing: The Odyssey of the Pectol Shields

By Robert S. McPherson and John Fahey

377 Seeing is Believing and Hearing is Believing: Thoughts on Oral Tradition and the Pectol Shields

By Lee Kreutzer

385 BOOK REVIEWS

Ned Blackhawk. Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the Early American West Reviewed by Sondra Jones

Dale L. Morgan, Richard L. Saunders, ed. Shoshonean Peoples and the Overland Trail: Frontiers of the Utah Superintendency of Indian Affairs Reviewed by Will Bagley

Michael Harold Paulos, ed. The Mormon Church on Trial: Transcripts of the Reed Smoot Hearings Reviewed by Thomas G. Alexander

David R. Berman. Radicalism in the Intermountain West, 1890-1920: Socialists, Populists, Miners, and Wobblies Reviewed by John McCormick

Jean Miles Westwood, Linda Sillitoe, ed. Madame Chair: The Political Autobiography of an Unintentional Pioneer Reviewed by Tim Chambless

Eric A. Eliason. The J. Golden Kimball Stories Reviewed by Robert Kirby

Cardell K. Jacobson, John P. Hoffman, and Tim B. Heaton, eds. Revisiting Thomas F. O’Dea’s The Mormons: Contemporary Perspectives Reviewed by Brandon Johnson

Jack L. August, Jr. Dividing Western Waters: Mark Wilmer and Arizona v. California Reviewed by A. Scott Loveless

Stanford J. Layton, ed. “The Skeleton in Grandpa’s Barn” and Other Stories of Growing Up in Utah Reviewed by Colleen Whitley

In a consideration of the past, three questions often help focus our research into the lives of individuals and groups: why did they come; why did they stay or leave;and what was important to them? The articles in our 2008 Fall issue take up these questions and in so doing help enhance our understanding of the Utah experience.

Our first article recalls why a small group of native Hawaiians chose to leave their beautiful and lush homeland in the Pacific and travel thousands of miles to a stark desert in Utah’s Skull Valley where the community of Iosepa became their new home. In many ways they were like the millions of other immigrants to the United States from all parts of the world. They came in search of a better life and to take advantage of opportunities not available in their homeland. Yet in coming, these immigrants also sought to preserve valued customs and traditions in their adopted land. The Iosepa Hawaiians came and left for religious reasons, though some observers would claim that the harsh environment was the primary factor for the end of what was a successful community. Though uninhabited today, Iosepa is remembered and cherished by UtahPolynesians.

It is a well-known dictum that the strength of a society can be judged by the care of the most vulnerable—the aged, the poor, and, especially the

ON THE COVER: Bust of a Hawaiian warrior on the Iosepa Monument.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

ABOVE: View looking to the west of the Iosepa Monument, cemetery and Skull Valley.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

children. Two private Salt Lake City hospitals, LDS Primary Children’s Hospital founded in 1911, and Shriners Hospital for Children Intermountain Unit established in 1925, are worthy examples of the importance Utahns gave to the health and well being of their children as both institutions became regional and national leaders in promoting separate health care facilities for children. The hospitals have treated thousands of children and they remain a vital part of Utah’s health care system. As our second article reveals, dedicated and forward-looking women led the way in promoting the establishment and fostering the growth of these two hospitals. May Anderson, Louie B. Felt, LaVern Parmley, Anna Rosenkilde, and others are remembered for their dedication to Utah’s children.

The two concluding articles for 2008 deal with one of Utah’s most important and unusual archaeological finds. In 1926 Ephraim and Dorothy Pectol discovered three shields and other items in a shallow cave underneath an overhanging ledge near what would become part of Capitol Reef National Park in 1937. Their discovery, as our third article discusses, stimulated much discussion and speculation as to their origin, purpose, and meaning.The artifacts were first exhibited in Pectol’s private museum in Torrey, Wayne County, then in the LDS Church Museum on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, and finally at the Capitol Reef Park’s visitor center after its completion in 1965. After the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in 1990 providing for the return to Native American care of cultural items and objects as well as human remains, the National Park Service began a lengthy process to determine to which Native American Tribe the artifacts would be returned. That process was completed under the direction of Lee Kreutzer, park archaeologist at Capitol Reef National Park from 1993 to 2003. Her account of that process, our final article, raisesvital questions about the role of oral tradition in establishing authenticity, significance, and ownership. The story of the Pectol shields and their final disposition,as told in our last two articles,offers all the elements of a good mystery—intrigue, conflict, speculation, and a surprise resolution.

Headstone for Kapainui Kalauno in the Iosepa Cemetery.

Iosepa: The Hawaiian Experience in Settling the

Mormon West

BY RICHARD H. JACKSON AND MARK W. JACKSON

The community of Iosepa in western Utah’s Skull Valley is significant as the only non-European migrant settlement in the Mormon West. Iosepa, the Hawaiian name for Joseph, was established in 1889 as a gathering place for Polynesian immigrants to Utah. It followed Joseph Smith Jr.’s “City of Zion” Plan, introduced in 1833, and used as a model for plotting Mormon towns in the Midwest and West. For twenty-five years Polynesian settlers worked to make Iosepa a success. In the end, Iosepa, like 15 to 20 percent of other western Mormon settlements, was abandoned.1

Iosepa’s abandonment was as unique as its demographic character among Mormon settlements because it resulted not from external environmental, political or economic forces, or internal dissension or economic failures as did other failed Mormon communities, but from the changing view of Mormon church leaders. An analysis of the unique aspects of

Residents of Iosepa building a sidewalk c. 1910. Individuals include, John E. Broad, Archie Kennison, and William Pukahi, Sr.

Richard H. Jackson is a professor of geography at Brigham Young University and Mark W. Jackson is an assistant professor in the same department. Their research interests focus on understanding the factors that affect land use over time, particularly those affecting growth and decline of communities.

1 Lynn A. Rosenvall, “Defunct Mormon Settlements: 1830-1930,” in Richard H. Jackson, ed., The Mormon Role in The Settlement of the West, (Provo: Brigham Young UniversityPress, 1978), 51-74.For general accounts of the Mormon settlement of the West see Leonard J.Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Boston:Harvard University Press, 1958); Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonismin Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996); James B. Allen and Marvin S.Hill, eds., Mormonism and American Culture, (New York: Harper and Row, 1972); and James B.Allen, et al. Studies in Mormon History, 1830-1997, An Indexed Bibliography (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000).

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Iosepa illustrates its differences from other Mormon towns and reveals its continued importance to current Utah residents of Polynesian ancestry.

The establishment of the Mormon settlements in the West was largely accomplished during the lifetime of Brigham Young. After his death in 1877, converts continued to “gather” to the Mormon West, where they and a new generation of western Mormonsneeded jobs and homes. Existing Mormon towns in the Great Basin often had little potential for expansion of their agricultural based economy and lacked a sufficient industrial base to employ both new migrants and second generation Mormons. Consequently a new settlement period emerged after the death of Young, but one with some important differences.2

Contrasting Paradigms of Mormon Settlement: 1847-1915

1847-1877:

The Brigham Young Era

Planned settlements with church leaders in Salt Lake City directing timing and location.

Communities created to provide livelihoods for new immigrants and to implement Young’s geopolitical vision of Mormon empire.

Cross section of heterogeneous settlers assigned by church leaders to provide skills necessary for a successful self-sufficient community.

Concentration of settlement in core area of Utah and southeastern Idaho.

Settlements experimented with communal ownership of land as Young attempted to implement Smith’s vision of a utopian society.

1878-1915:

The Post Young Era

Settlements founded by individual church members or groups with little or no formal direction from Salt Lake City church leaders. Communities established in any suitable undeveloped site in the Intermountain West to absorb overpopulation from the large Mormon families in earlier settlements.

Homogeneous settlement group, often drawn from one family or its relatives.

Expansion of settlements outside of core area, ultimately including sites from southern Canada to Northern Mexico.

Private ownership of land and other economic activities such as Mormon idiosyncrasies of communitarian life and polygamy were abandoned.

A major difference between the settlements before and after Young’s death are related to the replacement of the utopian ideals of communal settlements based on a formal church call (that attempted to ensure that a new settlement would include settlers with all the skills necessary for success) with settlements created by a group with little or no formal church direction. The creation of Iosepa in 1889 is notable among Mormon settlements established after the death of Brigham Young because it relied on the

2 Todd Goodsell,“Maintaining Solidarity: A Look Back at the Mormon Village,” Rural Sociology 65 (2000): 357-75.

earlier Mormon settlement paradigm. Not only was it sponsored and planned by the church, it was funded, operated and subsidized by the church.3 Unlike other Mormon settlements of its period, it was located in Utah only scores of miles from Salt Lake City rather than in sites far removed from church headquarters.

Iosepa owes its origins to Mormon missionary work begun in the Pacific Islands in 1843, and one of the unique doctrines of the early LDS church, the“gathering,” of its members to the headquarters of the church in the Great Basin.Initially,Hawaiian converts were unable to join with fellowchurch members in Utah because of Hawaii’s anti-emigration laws but undertook a local gathering process first at Palawai on Lanai in 1854, and later at a new site purchased by the church at Laie on Oahu in 1865.4 At the same time only a few Hawaiians traveled to Utah with missionaries returning from Hawaii. Among them was J.W. Kauleinamoku who arrived in 1875 and started working on the Temple Block to learn the carpentry trade. He was given a piece of church owned land in the 19th ward where he built a home in the northwest part of the city at what was then known as Beck’s Warm Springs. In 1882,eight individuals in three families came with Harvey H. Cluff, a returning missionary. They located near the Kauleinamoku home and secured employment with the church.5 More Hawaiians came to Utah with missionaries after the King of Hawaii lifted emigration restrictions in the mid-1880s. In1889,seventy-six Hawaiians were reported to be living in Salt Lake City. Difficulties with year round employment opportunities, cultural differences, and unwarranted fear of leprosy “…made it necessary to seek another location for the Hawaiian people.”6

Three men, Harvey H. Cluff, William W. Cluff, and Frederick A. Mitchell, were appointed “as a committee to take into consideration the subject of locating and arranging to secure land suitable for the coloniza-

3 Andrew Jenson,“Iosepa Colony, Tooele County, Utah,” manuscript, LDS Church History Library Archives,Salt Lake City, Utah. Researching Iosepa is made somewhat difficult because of its uniqueness. Some records of the LDS church, such as correspondence of church leaders, cannot be accessed by the public, and no diaries by the settlers are known. This narrative relies on information that is available to the public in the LDS Church History Library, newspaper or other published accounts, the diaries of Anglo leaders of the settlement, and a few recollections of the Anglo leaders and Hawaiian participants.

4 Mormon missionary work in the Polynesian islands has been well chronicled. Two very good references are R. LanierBritsch, Unto the Islands of the Sea (Salt Lake City:Deseret Book Company, 1986)and S. George Ellsworth and Kathleen Perrin, Seasons of Faith and Courage (Sandy:Yves R. Perrin, 1994).

5 Andrew Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History”, LDS Church History Library, Salt Lake City. Jenson was Assistant Church Historian for years and compiled a history that is titled “M.S. History of Iosepa Branch,” which details events related to the first few years of the Iosepa settlement by specific dates. The history includes a number of pages entitled “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History,” which provide an overview of the arrival of the Hawaiians in Salt Lake City and the subsequent decision to relocate them.

6 Jenson, “Iosepa Colony,” 8; Matthew Noall, To My Children: Autographical Sketch, (Salt Lake City: privately published, 1947), 57-58 is a recollection that includes information about the Hawaiians. As a former Hawaiian missionary, Noall was involved with the Hawaiians in Salt Lake City and states that “Because of their racial, language, and cultural differences they had great difficulty in adjusting to their new environment. Fault finding and bickering were growing among them…” leading to the decision to relocate them.

tion of the Hawaiians who have immigrated or who may immigrate to Zion,” and summoned to a meeting with the LDS Church Presidency on May 22, 1889. 7 At that meeting three Hawaiians—J. W. Kauleinamoku, George Kamaka[naiu] and “Brother” Napela—were approved to assist the committee.8

The group faced formidable obstacles in their task as the best sites along the well watered eastern margin of the Great Basin were already occupied, leaving only the marginal lands farther west in the drier western side of the Wasatch front or Great Basin Desert or marshy lands along the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake as alternative sites. Tooele County,in the Great Basin desert west of Salt Lake City with a population of 3,700, was one of the few places relatively near Salt Lake City with the potential for settlement. Of the seven sites investigated by the committee, including sites in Tooele, Weber, Cache and Utah Counties, all but one, Tooele County’s Skull Valley,

7 Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History.” The First Presidency included Wilford Woodruff, who had been sustained as president of the church on April 7, 1889, and councilor Joseph F. Smith, a nephew of Joseph Smith and later himself, president of the church from 1901 until his death in 1918. Smith served a four-year mission to Hawaii beginning in 1854 at the age of fifteen, where he became fluent in the language and developed a great love for the Hawaiian people. He returned to Hawaii in 1864, selecting the site for a plantation at Laie to be a gathering place for the converts in Hawaii.

8 Ibid.

The Iosepa Town Plat.

COURTESY OF THE AUTHORS

were deemed unsuitable due to either expense or lack of water and suitable soil for irrigated crops.9

Located seventy-five miles west of Salt Lake City and thirty miles from the nearest town of Grantsville, Skull Valley is characterized by an arid environment of six to eight inches of precipitation annually, extreme variability in temperatures with hot summers of over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit and cold winters with temperatures dropping below zero degrees Fahrenheit. Skull Valley is from ten to fifteen miles wide, bounded on the west by the Cedar Mountains, a typical block fault range of low hills of sedimentary rock. The valley opens into the Great Salt Lake Desert to the north with the eastern boundary formed by the Stansbury Mountain Range whose elevations reach eleven thousand feet. Soils on the alluvial fans at the base of the Stansbury Range are shallow and dry, but fertile when irrigated. Springs are found near the base of the mountains, some large enough to create small seasonal streams in wetter years. Native vegetation consists of bunch grass and scattered sagebrush, shad scale and creosote bushes and pinyon pine, with some aspen and pine available on the nearby mountains.

The dry summers and the limited water of Skull Valley deterred farming by earlier Mormon settlers, but the valley was used for livestock grazing. Harvey H. Cluff, president of the committee to select a site for the Hawaiian settlement,reported that although the valley was thirty miles distant from Grantsville, making the valley isolated and remote, there are some “great advantages.” The committee recommended purchasing the ranch of John T. Rich at a cost of$35,000. Equipment, improvements and the growing crops together “will amount to $12,000. This amount deducted from the former makes the real cost of land and improvements not to exceed $13.50 per acre.”Moreover, more land could be obtained if needed and in the nearby mountains there was “an abundant supply of fuel and fencing,” and sufficient building material nearby. The water supply was “extensive,” and with a mild climate would provide for the production of a large annual crop yield, sufficient to meet the settlers’ needs. A growing herd of livestock “judiciously managed” would enable the settlers to meet the annual payment of both the principal and interest. The committee was unanimous in its recommendation to locate the Hawaiian saints in Skull Valley.10

The church purchased the ranch with its 1,920 acres of land, 129 horses, 335 cattle, cattle sheds, a barn and blacksmith shop, a large spring and rights

9 Ibid. The Iosepa Ward Manuscript History contains the complete report of the committee, including general criteria for sites and reasons Skull Valley was superior. See also Harvey H. Cluff Diary, 25-27, Americana Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University. Cluff had been a missionary to Hawaii in the 1870s, and was later president of the Hawaii Mission. He was appointed to the committee to select the site for the community by theFirst Presidency of the Church, and became president and managing director of the Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company when the land was purchased for the communityas well as the presiding elder of the Mormon ecclesiastical organization from the beginning of the settlement.

10 Andrew Jenson, “Journal History of the Church,” manuscript, Latter-day Saint Church, Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, December20, 1928.

This building was constructed in 1889 to house the administration offices for Iosepa.

to irrigation water from five intermittent streams flowing from the Stansbury Mountains. On August 16, 1889, Rich and his wife were paid five thousand dollars cash by Harvey H. Cluff, with the balance to be paid bythe Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Companyin seven equal installments beginning on July 1, 1890. The notes, however, were endorsed by the First Presidency of the church, indicative of the actual financial source of support for the colony.11

The First Presidency manifested the importance of the colony by requesting Tooele Stake leaders to furnish volunteer teamsters to drive to Salt Lake City to pick up the possessions of the Hawaiians on August 26, and other volunteers to provide wagons and drivers to pick up the settlers at the train terminus in Garfield a day later. The night of the August26,“…the Hawaiians were assembled in the Ward house, where the Bishops of the 19th and 22nd wards had provided a sumptuous supper. There were present on invitation quite a number of Elders who had been on missions in the Sandwich Islands, and the evening was spent in music, songs and recitations.”12 The Tooele Stake was also assigned to provide a dinner and places to stay in Grantsville on the night of August 27. The next day, August 28, 1889, the first group of forty-six Hawaiian saints, (twenty males, twelve wives, two daughters, and twelve children,) were transported by wagon to the settlement site.13

11 Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History,” and Harvey H.Cluff, Autobiography, 31,Americana Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.

12 Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History.”

13 Cluff, “Autobiography,” April 1890.Tracy E. Panek, “Life at Iosepa, Utah’sPolynesian Colony,” Utah Historical Quarterly 60 ( Winter 1992): 66. Grantsville is only twelve miles away from Iosepa directly across the Stansbury Mountains, but the road goes north to the northern end of the range and then back south to Iosepa, making the actual journey longer.

The new colony was named Iosepa, Hawaiian for Joseph, in honor of Joseph F. Smith, a member of the First Presidency of the church and former missionary to Hawaii.14 The settlement was organized into a cooperative called the Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company (IASC), an incorporated entity designed to circumvent the limitations of property ownership by the LDS church by incorporating as a private company under Utah law.15 The stockholders included Harveyand William Cluff and Frederick Mitchell, the three committee members who selected the site, who each owned 334 shares, and John T. Caine, Albert W. Davis and Henry P. Richards, each owning 333 shares. Shares were nominally valued at $25.00 per share, although there is no record of any of the shareholders actually investing any actual personal cash or property in them. Few, if any, of the Hawaiiansaints owned shares in the company.16

F. A. Mitchell accompanied the first settlers to their new settlement and from August 28 to 30 platted the Iosepa town siteto include:

A public square, containing eleven acres, has been laid out in the center of town, and is destined to be fenced this fall and planted out to trees. The four center streets, eleven rods wide [181.5 feet], extended from the outer limits of the town on the four sides of the square, intersecting the eight rod streets [132 feet] encircling the square. It is designed to plant a row of trees in the center of each of these broad streets, forming avenues, extending from the centre of town to the outskirts. All the other streets are four rods [66 feet] wide and the blocks twenty-two rods [363 feet] square [3.035 acres], divided into four lots [181.5 feet square or 3/4 of an acre], thus making each lot a corner lot.17

The plan reflected the original plan drawn by Joseph Smith for his earlier proposed City of Zion in the Midwest. Smith’s original plan was unique in suggesting wider avenues in the center of the town, a proposal apparent in the Iosepa community but absent in most other Mormon settlements in the West.18 The actual survey was apparently not carried out until the following year, and the largest streets were dropped in favor of only the four 132 foot avenues and the 66 foot wide streets. The 181.5 foot wide streets would have been the widest in any town in the Mormon West, and even the smaller 132 foot wide main streets surveyed equaled those found in the burgeoning Mormon capital, Salt Lake City.

Residential lots were selected in a drawing and construction on the first houses began on September 9 with local stone and wood from a water-

14 Newspaper accounts often assumed that the town was named for the prophet Joseph Smith Jr.

15 T.A. Waddoups, Interview, April 5, 1958, in Dennis H. Atkin,“A History of Iosepa, the Utah Polynesian Colony,” (MA thesisBrighamYoung University, 1958), 22. In 1887 the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed by the U.S. Congress strengthening the Morrill Act of 1862 limiting the church to owning no more than $50,000 worth of property.

16 According to T. A. Waddoups, J. W. Kauleinamoku later bought ten shares in the company but very few others ever did so. Waddoups Interview, April 5, 1958,in Dennis H. Atkin,“A History of Iosepa,” 22.

17 Utah Enquirer (Provo), quoted in Panek, “Life of Iosepa,” 67.

18 Richard H. Jackson and Robert L. Layton, “The Mormon Village: Analysis of a Settlement Type,” The Professional Geographer 28 (1976): 136-41.

powered sawmill five miles away. The mill was acquired by the LDS church and the former owner paid to continue operating the mill.19

The first winter was extremely difficult. Cattle died from the harsh weather and influenza spread among the settlers, some of whom returned to Salt Lake City during the coldest months. According to one account, “The winter of 1889-90 was very severe and the Hawaiian colonists suffered intensely, having come from a climate where a balmy temperature prevails. They remained indoors hovering around fires most of the time and an epidemic of ‘flu’ rendered conditions unusually trying. Only one man (white) died, however.”20

A few settlers gave up the following spring and left, but most stayed to begin plowing, planting and making irrigation ditches to nourish the growing crops.21 The settlers’ work was rewarded with a bounteous crop after their first full year in the new community of Iosepa. In August 1890, the LDS church’s First Presidency visited Iosepa and, according to H.H. Cluff, “The Brethren were astonished at the good crop, especially the splendid crop of corn.”22 Others reported that there were 1,826 bushels of wheat, 1,837 bushels of barley, 2,267 bushels of oats, 400-500 bushels of corn and some potatoes and fresh corn.23

The dedication of the Salt Lake Temple was an important event for residents of Iosepa. When a special fast was held on May 1, 1892, to raise funds to push the temple to completion, Iosepa residents contributed $1,400 of their hard-earned and much needed money.24 When the temple was completed and dedicated in 1893, faithful LDS members in various settlements were assigned a day to attend the temple dedication ceremonies which began on April 6 and continued through April 18, and resumed for two days April 23 and 24. T.A. Waddoups, who was both the ranch manager and ecclesiastical leader of the church organization of Iosepa, reports that twenty-nine adults at Iosepa were so eager to attend that they came to him, confessed any minor sins they might have committed, and asked to be re-baptized to show their worthiness to attend the temple. All left Iosepa several days early to insure they would arrive for their appointed day, April 9, 1893.25 Because only worthy adults were able to enter the temple, the number from Iosepa must have been nearly all of the adults in the estimated eighty to one hundred residents, and their inclusion in the earliest dedicatory services suggests their continued importance to the church leaders. After participation in the temple dedication, Iosepa worthy adults

19

Those individuals selecting lots were charged twenty-five dollars to be paid by their work on the ranch and farm. Jenson, “M.S. History of Iosepa Branch.”

20 Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History.”

21 Cluff, “Autobiography.” Cluff records that at least five individuals left “as a thief in thenight.”

22 Cluff, “Diary,” August 28, 1890.

23 Edna Hope Gregory, “Iosepa, Kanaka Ranch,” Utah Humanities Review 2 (1948): 4. 24 Cluff, “Autobiography,” 102.

25 Ibid.

made the uncomfortable two day wagon trip to the Salt Lake City Temple as often as possible, camping overnight in a cave en route.26

By 1893 the Iosepa settlement had eighty Hawaiians and fourteenAnglos, “who labor under the direct supervision of the First Presidency. The company finds employment for all men who will work, at $30.00 per month.”27 Cluff continued to serve as head of the community and president of the IASC until 1901 when he was replaced by Thomas A. Waddoups, another former missionary to Hawaii.28 The practice of assigning an Anglo fluent in Hawaiian to serve as both president of the Hawaiian Mormon congregation (which was conterminous with the Iosepa settlement) and manager of the corporation persisted throughout Iosepa’s existence.

Iosepa’s first twenty-five years witnessed relative success, although perennial concerns about water for crops and the broader American economy were evident.During the depression of the 1890s, for example, Grantsville Mormons were unable to pay the agreed upon rent to use Iosepa lands for winter grazing of sheep.29 Consequently, the IASC was unable to pay its county property taxes, prompting church authorities in 1897 to consider renting the ranch to a Grantsville Mormon who would hire the Hawaiian residents to operate it.30 With additional cash assistance from the church, however, the community survived and grew slowly.

Close examination of the settlement of Iosepa illustrates how unique it was in the Mormon settlement of the West. Other towns had also been settled partially or completely by Mormon converts from a distinct geographic area but each group shared a related European origin. Unlike Iosepa, the other Mormon ethnic settlements occurred during the early settlement period (1847-1877) when better agricultural lands were available. Mormon settlements established in this time used cooperative efforts to lay out the community, build schools and churches, but followed the example of Salt Lake City in dividing the land into privately owned town lots and farm lots which were allocated by drawing numbers assigned to the lots. Each head of a household was entitled to ownership of a lot and a small farm in the area surveyed for irrigated farms. Normally each family operated its own farm. Public works like irrigation systems, roads, and schools, were completed through community cooperation, but individual

26 Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 71. Those going to the temple often hauled a wagon load of wheat to be milled near Grantsville and picked it up on the return trip. The fact that the school in Iosepa only included the first to the eighth grade meant that a few of the older children boarded in Salt Lake City or Grantsville during the winter to attend high school, and parents could combine a visit with them with a visit to the temple.

27 Jenson, “M.S. History of Iosepa Branch,” 1893.

28 In 1891 H.H. Cluff was replaced by William King, a former president of the Hawaiian Mission, but when King died suddenly in February 1892, Cluff was reinstated.

29

“From the Hawaiian Colony,” Deseret Evening News, July 13, 1892; Cluff, “Diary,” 117; Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 70.

30 “The Iosepa Colony,” Deseret Evening News, December 22,1894; Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 74.

ownership of land and businesses was the norm in Mormon settlements until Brigham Young began the economic cooperative movement in 1868 when the first Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) was formed in Salt Lake City. The goal behind the ZCMI movement was to insure that Mormons rather than outsiders (referred to as Gentiles by Mormons) benefited from Mormon trade. By 1870 many Mormon settlements had a general store operated cooperatively for the community’s residents.31 Young expanded the idea of community cooperation when in 1873-74 he introduced the idea of the Order of Enoch, commonly referred to as the “United Order” in which all members of a community were to cooperate in all their economic activities.32 The arrival of the railroad in 1869 bringing cheaper manufactured goods from the east and new opportunities in mining,followed by the death of Brigham Young in 1877,led to a rapid abandonment of the cooperative or communal model except for the local ZCMI in all but a few communities. A variant of the communal model, however, resurfaced as the basis of Iosepa’s incorporation as a joint-stock company. Settlers drew lots to receive land for a home, garden, and privately owned livestock, but worked for the IASC were paid based on their labor and the value of the crops produced, as in Young’s United Order model. Initially,the settlers were simply credited for the amount of labor they devoted to the crop and livestock production of the IASC, and the corporation balanced their work against

31 Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, 88-91, 298-302.

32 L. Dwight Israelson,“United Orders,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed.Daniel H. Ludlow(New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 4: 1493-95.

Pioneer Day Celebration at Iosepa c.1914.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

their purchases of food and clothing at the general store.33 In 1901 the IASC issued scrip to replace the cumbersome bookkeeping required to keep track of hours worked and value of goods produced. Workers were paid thirty dollars per month in scrip, which was redeemable only at the company store in Iosepa.34 Later the scrip was abandoned in favor of regular U.S. currency, but the United Order communitarian model in which all members of the community were part of a joint stock company and shared in the production from the cooperatively owned lands persisted longer in Iosepa than in any other Mormon settlement. A major difference, however, was that in Iosepa the land always belonged to the IASC rather than being originally owned individually and then pooled in the United Order.

Iosepa was never a large community, but the initial settlers were joined over time by other Hawaiians and a few other Polynesians. The Deseret Evening News reported that at the 1908 Hawaiian Pioneer Day on August 28,there were “100 Hawaiians, 27 American Indians, 13 Samoans, 6 Maoris, 1 Portugese, [sic] 5 half caste Portugese, 3 families of Scotchmen, [and] several families of English [local Anglo Mormon residents]...” in attendance.35 The 1910 U.S. Census reports that there were 187 people in “Iosepa precinct.”36 Judgingfrom the numbers at the celebration and population listed by the census of 1910 the Iosepa precinct was as large as many other small Mormon agricultural villages elsewhere in the region.

The Hawaiian achievementsat Iosepa were especially noteworthy because the national financial recession of the 1890scoincided with an offer by the Hawaiian government to pay for the passage of all Hawaiian settlers who wanted to return to their native land as the Kingdom of Hawaii faced economic and political challenges that ultimately led to the United States acquiring the islands as a territory later in the 1890s.37 Few responded to the offer, and by 1915 Iosepa was reported to have a population of 228, similar in size to many other small Mormon settlements.38

33 Cluff, “Diary,” 242, and T.A. Waddoups, interview, in Atkin, “A History of Iosepa,” 23, 50.

34Tooele Transcript, February 27, 1976. The scrip states on the front that “Thisscrip is not to be used as money,” but that “This writing witnesseth that THE IOSEPA AGRICULTURAL and STOCK COMPANY agrees to furnish the beareran assortment of FARM PRODUCTS to the amount of FIFTY CENTS at the Iosepa Ranch in Skull Valley, Tooele Co. Utah August 1st1901.” Signed by the treasurer and president. In spite of this disclaimer that it is not money, it presents an appearance of currency, including the large denomination notation in the upper right hand corner of 50 cts, and in the left corner the number of the scrip certificate. The reverse side has two large shield shapes with the designation “Hapualua 50 Kala” in the center of each on each end and in the center of the scrip the words “This Script is payable in an assortment of Farm Products at retail prices and is not current except at THE IOSEPA RANCH Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah.” This inscription is separated into the top part of the bill and bottom part by a coat of arms surmounted by an eagle with the inscription“UAMAUKEEAOKA AINA I KA PONO.” The scrip was lithographed in Salt Lake City and original examples of the scrip are in the Tooele County Museum.

35 Deseret Evening News, September 9,1908.

36 U. S. Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States of America, Volume III, “Population 1910”(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913), 871, table 1.

37 Deseret Evening News, December 22, 1894, and Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 74.

38 Atkin,“History of Iosepa,” 35.

The population growth was correlated with increased agricultural production of the IASC. In 1904, the Hawaiian settlers had 500 head of cattle and had raised1,000 tons of hay, 5,200 bushels of wheat and barley, and 800 bushels of potatoes and 50tons of squash.39 Six years laterthe colonists cultivated1,000 acres in crops besides their hay lands and by 1914 the IASC recorded $20,000 in profit after paying the workers and other expenses. A telephone line reached the community in 1906, and a railroad siding was opened on the Western Pacific Railroad at Timpie station fifteen miles north of the community the same year. In 1915, when Iosepa received a state award for the cleanest community, the settlement had5,000 acres of crops and hay under cultivation.40

Iosepa continued to be unique among other Mormon settlements because it remained a joint-stock company under direct supervision of the leaders of the church.It was incorporated under Utah laws as a joint-stock company and managed by managers (who were also ecclesiastical leaders of the Iosepa branch) appointed by the First Presidency of the church. None of the First Presidency was on the company’s board of directors but the First Presidency did guarantee the company’s financial losses and provided additional funds for the company’s expansion and operation.While complete records detailing costs to the church for Iosepa are not available, there are a number of references to such expenses. For example, the church

39 “Conference at Iosepa,” Deseret Evening News, November 26, 1904.

40 Panek, “Life at Iosepa,”76.

Iosepa residents picking up goods at the railroad located fifteen miles north of Iosepa.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

purchased additional land for the colony in 1890, 1893, and 1902,as well as a one-third interest in water rights from six small creeks entering the valley in 1896, and the church provided funds to improve facilities for hog production. Church assistance in meeting taxes and installing the pressurized water system are other examples.41

During their years at Iosepa the Hawaiian settlers sought to maintain their language, culture, and traditions. They continued to speak Hawaiian at church and other public meetings—although most were fluent in English—as did the IASC manager,a former Hawaiian missionary. 42 Culinary traditions continued in spite of the lack of traditional Pacific foodstuffs which forced adaptation of local substitutes. Pork, raised by the settlers, was one traditional foodstuff, which was also sold in Salt Lake City as was the beef raised at Iosepa.Missing from the local environment was a ready supply of fish. The solution was to plant carp in the 250 foot wide by 1500 foot long reservoir (named Kanaka Lake) dug for water storage.43 A variety of algae was also harvested from Kanaka Lake to use in place of seaweed in cooking several of the traditional luau delicacies, and corn husks were substituted for ti leaves to wrap pork and fish. Poi, another traditional food, was made from flour and corn starch poured into boiling water and stirred until the lumps disappeared. It was then strained through a flour sack and put into an earthen jar to sour. After it was soured, it was placed on a flat board and pounded with a ball stick until the mixture became fluffy and smooth, resembling ice cream, then it was returned to the jar ready to eat. The natives ate their poi, which took the place of bread, with their two forefingers.44

The Iosepa residents also maintained their distinctive music and dance. Pioneer Day celebrations and other festivities attracted local ranch families, sheep herders, visitors from Grantsville,and the rare passing motorist from the Lincoln Highway to hear traditional Hawaiian music.45 The residents also formed a Hawaiian band and a singing group called the Hawaiian Troubadours which performed in Grantsville and other communities.46

Life was fragile for all of the frontier settlers of the West and Hawaiian settlers at Iosepa especially weathered some unusual challenges.The first winter the influenza was so severe that when a death occurred there were only three men healthy enough to make a coffin and see to the burial.47 Typhoid fever, pneumonia, and diphtheria struck the colony from time to

41

“Big Event for Iosepa Colony,” Herald Republican , September 15, 1915, cited in Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 76.

42 Thomas A. Waddoups, “ The Iosepa Colony and the Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company,” Interview, December 1956, 3, Brigham Young University Library. Atkin, “A History of Iosepa,” 36, 59.

43 Atkin, “A History of Iosepa,”35, 69.

44 Nona Shibley, “Iosepa, Kanaker Colony,” Sons of Utah Pioneer News (September 1959): 13.

45 The Official Guide of the Lincoln Highway (Detroit: The Lincoln HighwayAssociation,1916), 133.

46 Edna Hope Gregory, “Iosepa, Kanaka Ranch,” Utah Humanities Review 2 (1948): 5-7; Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 72.

47 Jenson, “Iosepa,” 6.

The Iosepa Troubadours, c. 1910.

time. Three residents were diagnosed with leprosy in 1896, and,after all remedies failed, the colony constructed a small house outside the village where continued care was provided the victims until 1901 when the last victim died.48

Church leaders had intended Iosepa to be a permanent gathering place for Polynesians. On August 28, 1890, the first anniversary of the Iosepa settlement, church president Wilford Woodruff, “dedicated Skull Valley as a gathering place for the Saints from the islands of the Seas.”49 However, Iosepa’s end came unexpectedly twenty-five years later with the announcement at the October 1915 LDS church conference that construction of a temple in Hawaii would begin immediately.50 The temple was dedicated four years later on November 27, 1919. With that announcement, many Iosepa settlers expressed their desire to return to Hawaii.51

There may have been multiple reasons for their willingness to abandon their oasis in the desert, but first and foremost seems to have been the desire to return to Hawaii to assist in building the temple and to gather genealogical information which would allow them to complete their ancestors’ temple work. The initial desire of Hawaiians to immigrate to Utah centered on their desire to “gather” with the saints where they could perform temple ceremonies for their dead ancestors. Some of the adult residents of the Iosepa colony had been involved in construction of the Salt Lake Temple before Iosepa’s founding.52

48 Gregory, “Iosepa, Kanaka Ranch,” 8; Panek, “Life at Iosepa,” 73; “Physician Recalls Utah Leper Colony,” Ogden Standard-Examiner, February 24, 1937.

49 Jenson, “M.S. History of Iosepa Branch,” August 28, 1890.

50 Deseret Evening News, October 4, 1915.

51 Jenson, “Iosepa Colony,” 5;Waddoups Interview, April 9, 1958, in Atkins, “A History of Iosepa,” 80.

52 Cuma SorensonHoopiiaina, Iosepa, (1982, Xeroxed pages, no publisher or publishing place), 22.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

The prospect of having a temple in their own land was very appealing to the residents of Iosepa, and apparently to the church. More importantly, some of the people of Iosepa had been able to acquire an understanding of skills useful in construction of a temple, while others were familiar with those necessary to participate in temple ceremonies, and their presence in Hawaii would be an asset in the construction and operation of the proposed temple there. President Joseph F. Smith directed that “…if any of the Hawaiians wished to return to the islands, it was agreeable with the Church for them to do so and that the Church would pay such transportation expenses as the individuals could not afford to pay.”53 However, not all at the outset were desirous to return, but the generous offer by President Smithpersuaded nearly all of them to accept the offer and return to the Islands. Ella Brunt Kamauoha recalled that her husband John, “…did not wish to go back to Hawaii, but [did so] under the advice of President Smith who said that perhaps the next prophet would not have the same ‘aloha’for the Polynesians as he had.”54 T.A.Waddoups reported that “Some of the colonists did not wish to leave Iosepa but once the movement got under way, all were swept up with it.”55 President Smith counseled the Polynesians that if they returned they were “...to go to a location where there was an established LDS mission,” apparently emphasizing the importance of returning to Laie,since it was the location of the headquarters of the Hawaii mission.56

The settlers began to leave within months of the 1915 announcement, and by 1917 the settlement was abandoned, which forced the president of the IASC to hire non-Polynesians to assist in harvesting the crops. The land and community were sold to the Deseret Livestock Company (owned by the LDS church) in the fall of 1917.57 Not all of the Hawaiians and other Polynesians left Utah when Iosepa ended, however. A few continued to live in Salt Lake City or other towns in the state, one even continued to live in Skull Valley, attempting to “prove up” on a homestead just north of Iosepa.58

Since its abandonment, a number of explanations have been offered as unique reasons for the closing of Iosepa.The incidence of leprosy is seized upon by some as the cause of abandonment of the village. “Some say that

53 Waddoups, Interview, April 9, 1958, in Atkins, “Iosepa History,” 80; Jenson, “Iosepa Colony,” 5-6.

54 Ella Brunt Kamauoha, Interview, March 1958, in Atkins, “Iosepa History,” 80.

55 Waddoups, Interview, April 9, 1958, in Atkins, “History of Iosepa,” 80.

56 Deseret Evening News, November 1, 1917.

57 The Iosepa property was sold for$150,000.00 according to Waddoups. Waddoups Interview, April 9, 1958, cited in Atkin, “History of Iosepa,” 80.

58 Hartt Wixom, “Last Vestige of ‘Oasis?’” Deseret News, February 19, 1969; Rose Mary Pederson, “In Skull Valley- a Ghost of Hawaii,” Deseret News, July 10, 1976. These newspaper accounts tell of the family of John Kaili Hoopiiania, one of the early settlers of Iosepa. His five sons, Akoni, Ben, Neil, John and Pete, chose not to return to Hawaii. Akoni (generally called “Coe Nay”) attempted to homestead land but was never able to bring enough land under irrigation to obtain ownership. Akoni died in 1968 and was buried in the Iosepa cemetery. The Bureau of Land Management required his small cabin and shed be removed in 1969 a task accomplished by his brother Pete and a neighboring rancher. Pete Hoopiiania was reported to be the last living resident of Iosepa still in Utah.

the reason the project was abandoned, was that the government was afraid leprosy would be brought from the Islands to the United States.”59 Other authors repeated this explanation, combining it with other problems of disease faced by every frontier community:“The eventual disbandment of the community seems to have resulted in part from problems of health. The prospects of the colony took a serious turn for the worse in 1896 when the county physician found three cases of leprosy... The outbreak of leprosy was undoubtedly one of the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm of some of those participating in this colonization experiment.”60 Since the actual end of the town did not occur until sixteen years after the deaths of the only three individuals diagnosed with leprosy it is an unlikely proximate cause for its demise.

LDS church historian Andrew Jenson concluded that health reasons were the primary factor. “In 1917,it was considered best to discontinue the Iosepa Colony as the health of the Hawaiians was not good and the percentage of mortality was too high. The colonists were therefore advised to return to their native homes and assisted by the Church to doso.”61

Some observers have posited environmental causes for the sudden departure of the Polynesian saintsconcluding that the Islanders were simply incapable of living in such a hostile environment setting. Notes one author: [The] conditions in the desert valley were too difficult for this project, begun with such enthusiasm and pursued with such courage. Even the intense faith of converts was not enough to adjust dwellers of the Pacific islands to the conditions in Skull Valley, Utah. Picturing the contrast between the lush and verdant flora of the Hawaiian landscape and the sparse vegetation, the sagebrush and scattered cottonwoods of this desert region; and thinking of the all-year-round warmth and sunshine of the Islands and the extreme summer heat and winter cold of Skull Valley, it is easy to understand the inability of Hawaiians to adjust themselves physically and mentally.62

Others have suggested even a stronger assessment for the failure of the Iosepa colony.

What qualms must have assailed those gentle islanders as they gazed upon the land allotted them for a home! For countless generations their race had known only the luxuriant beauty of a carefree South Sea Paradise; a place where surf sparkled on white coral beaches; where wild fruit could be had for gathering and fish for the catching; where midnight was as warm as noon and winter was a thing unknown.

59 J. Lyman Fawson, “A History of Iosepa,” Iosepa Hawaiian Colony, Skull Valley, Utah,” manuscript, American Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo.

60 Gregory, “Iosepa, Kanaka Ranch,” 7-8.

61 Jenson, “M.S. History of Iosepa,” 1917.It is unclear whether Jenson had access to minutes of meetings of the First Presidency or other sources in reaching his conclusion that the mortality was too high, but given his position he may have had access to materials not available for perusal today. The only available data indicated that there were forty-eight babies blessed and twenty-nine deaths between 1907 and 1916, and thirty-five babies blessed and seventeen deaths between 1911 and 1916.Without data on the age and sex characteristics, causes of death, fertility rate, etc. to compare to other similar Utah settlements of the time however, it is impossible to conclude whether or not these constitute poor health among the Hawaiians, Atkins, “History of Iosepa,” 69-70.

62 Gregory, “Iosepa, Kanaka Ranch,” 9.

And now...Skull Valley.

But for a few scraggly junipers on the desert hill to the east, there was not a tree or shrub as far as the eye might range. Heat of the Salt Desert would beat mercilessly upon them in summer; winter would bring the icy grip of snow-laden winds. Here was no fruit, no fish, no gleaming surf; here were no gay tropic blossoms that an island maid might tuck in her hair…

Only men of magnificent courage and the fortification of deep religious faith could have had the heart to take up the cross of Iosepa.....Iosepa...would never be more [than a small, temporary community], for those who peopled it were not constitutionally adapted to the unremitting labor demanded of men who seek to conquer the desert; nor were their bodies capable of adjusting to violent climactic change. Sickness and death was the payoff.....With the cemetery growing faster than the town, and the flat, dry breast of Skull Valley remaining as inhospitable as in the beginning, it is little wonder that the islanders at last lost heart....Iosepa, the Forlorn Hope, was deeded back to the desert winds and desolation.63

While the author’s conclusion that Iosepa was a harsh geographic setting is correct, there is no evidence that the Polynesian settlers themselves were any different from those of other Mormon Great Basin settlements. Nearly a generation of Polynesians had lived and died in these very conditions, clearly they did not leave because their bodies and minds were somehow inferior and unable to adapt to the climate. The environmental difficulties as the proximate cause of failure may have some validity, however, if tied to the problems of financial costs versus benefits. The location was a harsh one in which the settlers would never become rich from agriculture, but numerous other Mormon settlements in the Great Basin persist to the present in situations that are clearly harsh compared to sites in more humid environments. Over time more and more of the inhabitants of these other Mormon settlements turned to other economic activities to supplement their farming incomes, and there is clear evidence that the same process was beginning in Iosepa prior to its demise as some male residents worked in Salt Lake City or Grantsville during the winter or part time during the summer.64

The financial problems of Iosepa were unusual among Mormon settlements because the joint-stock company was never completely independent from the church. This close tie also created an unusual financial drain on church finances. The ecclesiastical and business leader of the community was a Utah resident,familiar with the Hawaiian language and culture, appointed by church leaders, whichillustrates the paternalistic nature of the church’s relationship to the Iosepa community. When President Smith announced construction of a temple in Hawaii he removed the major

63 Neil Murbarger, “Utah’s Tropic Island,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 24, 1952. The author does give passing mention to the fact that “with completion of the LDS Temple inHawaii in 1916, a majority of those remaining returned to their native land.” While there are numerous errors in the facts of the article, it does clearly present the idea that the climate was simply too harsh for Polynesians.

64 For examples of the failure of settlements in the Great Basin Desert that were not directed by the LDS church that included settlers from Mormon and non-Mormon backgrounds see Marshall Bowen, Utah People in the Nevada Desert: Homestead and Community on a Twentieth-Century Farmers’ Frontier (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1994).

reason for the church’s support of Iosepa, access to the temple for sacred rites for Hawaiian converts. When he indicated that future church leaders might not be as supportive of Iosepa and offered to pay their fare to Hawaii as well as buy their stock in Iosepa,he effectively freed them from the commandment to “gather” to the Salt Lake area, suggesting that they could leave.

We can conclude that the abandonment of Iosepa was not because of widespread leprosy among its residents, nor the inability of the Hawaiians to tolerate the climate of the Great Basin. It is impossible to conclude how much of the decision to encourage the settlers to return to Hawaii resulted from continued financial costs to the church. The colony had been showing a profit in the years just preceding the advice to leave,except for capital investments like the water system, which was to have been repaid over time to the church. However, the ranch manager reported that all profits had always been re-invested in the colony instead of returned to the church so there was some financial drain.

With the opportunity to participate in construction of a temple in their homeland and thepermission and assistance of the church to abandon their quarter century of gathering to Zion, some residents still sensed a great loss.Observers recorded that as the last Hawaiians left Iosepa in January 1917,“...the women refused to ride in the wagons and were determined to walk the distance to the railroad [fifteen miles]. They followed the wagons on foot and with big tears running down their faces they kept looking back at their homes and uttering ‘goodby Iosepa, goodby Iosepa.’”65

65

Alf Callister interview in Donald J. Rosenberg. “Iosepa Colonists Return to Hawaii,” Tooele Transcript, February 24, 1976.

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Iosepa residents in front of one of the original houses, c. 1910.

Today there is little physical evidence of the Hawaiian community that existed in the desert for nearly three decades. A road sign at the entrance to a ranch headquarters identifies it as Iosepa. Several of the buildings used by ranch employees were once homes of the Hawaiian settlers. Behind these buildings a few scattered trees and dead tree trunks are arrayed in line and close observation reveals a few sidewalk remnants partially visible through the brush, beginning in what were once streets, and ending in the sagebrush overgrown foundations of long removed houses. The little cemetery at Iosepa contains the graves of seventysix settlers dating from September 15, 1889, to December. 16,1915. 66 One headstone, that of J. W. Kauleinamoku, born in Hilo, Hawaii, on October 27, 1837, died at Iosepa, Skull Valley, Utah, July 21, 1899, records the life of a member of the original selection committee who devoted the last years of his life to the Polynesian colony. 67 His grave is joined by other Polynesian natives (mainly from Hawaii) as well as children only a few months old who had never known anything but Iosepa in their brief lives. All are mute symbols of the faithful saints who made Iosepa a Polynesian “island” in the Great Basin Desert.

The Iosepa experiment has not been forgotten. An imposing granite monument recounting the accomplishments of the Iosepa colonizers was construct-

66 Hoopiiaina, Iosepa. John Palikapee Nawahinbe was buried in the cemetery on August 26, 1923, and Akoni Hoopiiaina on September 6, 1968.

67 Jenson, “Iosepa Ward Manuscript History.” Kauleinamoku had immigrated to Utah in 1875, where he was employed as a carpenter on the Salt Lake Temple. He was the first Hawaiian sent on a mission from Salt Lake City, serving a one year mission in New Zealand from 1888-1889. Active in the Iosepa settlement from his time on the selection committee, he was a stockholder in the IASC representing the Polynesians’ interests and served as the Sunday School Superintendent in Iosepa for a time.

Headstones in the Iosepa Cemetery.

UTAH

STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

ed at the old Iosepa cemetery in 1989 in commemoration of the centennial of the settlement’s founding.68 Mormon church presidentEzra Taft Benson personally presided at the ceremony unveiling the monument, noting that: “Sometimes this [Iosepa] is looked at as a failure. But it was not a failure because of the spiritual conviction and influence it gave the islanders who lived there and their descendants living today.”69

From the perspective of Mormon colonization,Iosepa is an interesting example of how ideas introduced by Joseph Smith Jr. persisted long after his death in encouraging converts to gather to be near thecommunity of believers. In this respect,it is only marginally different from the founding of other Mormon communities in the West, but examination of the experience of Iosepa and other Mormon settlements suggests a model for explaining the success or failure of not only Iosepa but other Mormon communities.

The successful Mormon settlements established under Young’s direction shared five distinct characteristics:

(1) Thecharismatic leadership of Young who directed the settlers’ colonization efforts.

(2) The successful use of cooperative efforts in their settlement process.

(3) A shared millennialist ideology that included the view of themselves as a chosen people for whom God would intervene in the natural environment to facilitate their successful completion of the directions of their leaders.

(4) Continued conflict with non-Mormons fostering a defensive mentality.70

(5) Geographic resources of land and water sufficient to allow the initial

68 Lloyd Scott, “Iosepa Memorial Honors Utah’s Hawaiian Settlers,” Deseret News August 29, 1989; Myron W. Lee, “Church Leaders Praise Iosepa,” Tooele Transcript Bulletin August 29, 1989; “Centennial Held to Honor Hawaiians’ Settlement,” Magna Times, August 31, 1989. Newspaper accounts note that the monument was financed by the “Iosepa Historical Society with the help of donations from the LDS church and others.” Edwin Kamanola was one of the principal individuals behind the move to erect the memorial, personal communication with Dennis Atkin, July 26, 2001. Prior to the erection of a monument groups from the LDS church in Grantsville periodically tried to remove weeds, maintain the fence around the graves, and care for the site. See “Graves Restored,” Church News, July 16, 1977, for typical examples of activities to spruce up the cemetery.In 1971 Iosepa was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

69 Lee, “Church Leaders Praise Iosepa,” 1-2.

70 Goodsell, “Maintaining Solidarity,” 357-75.

settlement to become self-sufficient without continued outside subsidies.

At least three of these factors were unique to the Mormon experience, but they changed markedly after Young’s death. The post-Young settlements (1877-1915)lacked the personal direction by a charismatic leader as growth in the church combined with outside political pressure to cause the church to give up its role as guarantor of businesses suchas the IASC.71 Abandonment of the practice of polygamy reduced the most vocal opposition to Mormons that typified political speeches and newspaper accounts during the 1870-1890 years, reducing the Mormon view of themselves as a beleaguered minority. At the same time the acceptance of a millennialistic utopian world-view based on communitarian principles was replaced by adoption of typical American frontier characteristics of individualism, private property and free enterprise economic practices.

Iosepa’s establishment, however, represents a reversion to the earlier settlement paradigm of the Brigham Young years. Joseph F. Smith, like the charismatic Young for earlier settlements, was the church leader for the Hawaiians who encouraged settlement of Iosepa. Smith helped direct the selection of a location for the settlement, and the resultant organization and settlement process. His ties to the Hawaiian community prompted differential treatment for them compared toEuropean immigrants of the time. While Europeans were expected to assimilate into the established Mormon society and economy, Smith’s intervention on behalf of the Polynesians created a unique paternalistic settlement form for the Mormon’s only Polynesian community in Utah. Albeit apparently inspired by good intentions, the establishment of Iosepa not only segregated the Hawaiian minority far from the Mormon capital on marginal land, but effectively implemented a plantation-like ranch under direction of a Caucasian overseer. Failure to become integrated into the mainstream Mormon communities and the continued need for church financial support of Iosepa probably factored into the decision to end the Hawaiian settlement and to repatriate them to the existing Mormon Hawaiian community in Laie, where a temple was to be constructed. The primary cause,however, seems to have been Joseph F. Smith’s concern about the future of the settlement after his death and the residents’ acceptance of his advice to return to Hawaii. The Iosepa colonists’faith in their leaders as inspired men who had encouraged them to gather to Utah also allowed them to accept the then prophet’s counsel to return to Hawaii.

The Polynesian impact on Utah did not end with the Iosepa memorial, however. Largely as a result of post World War II immigration, Utah today ranks third (after California and Washington) among states in the continental United States in numbers of Polynesians. The 2000 U.S. Census indicates 22,678 individuals claiming Pacific Island ancestry in Utah, of

71 Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom, 407-12.

whom 20,021 are Polynesian. While ranking third in number, the percent of Utah’s population who claim Polynesian ancestry is twice as high as any other mainland state (0.7 percent of the total population) and seven times the national average. The rate of growth of the Polynesian population in Utah has increased by 70 percent for the decade of 1980 to 1990, and has more than doubled in the last decade of the twentieth century.72

Descendents of Iosepa and other supporters of the former Hawaiian community have taken a renewed interest in Iosepa and in 1985 organized the Iosepa Historical Society. Over the years the historical society has received various grants and contributions to construct a covered pavilion, which has kitchen facilities, and other amenities, to restore and maintain the cemetery and to make other improvements. The pavilion and adjacent cemetery provide a permanent location for events associated with the annual Memorial Day activities. The Iosepa Cemetery continues to be an “active cemetery” with new graves being added.

Today, after the abandonment of the settlement of Iosepa little remains of the town site except a few foundations and pieces of sidewalk. The poplar trees that once lined the main street are dead and largely have disintegrated while the outline of the streets that were clearly visible only a decade or two ago are hard to discern among the numerous cattle trails that bisect the old town site.

A granite monument dedicated in 1989, topped with the bust of a Hawaiian warrior, stands as a mute testimony that the people buried here are different from those in most Mormon cemeteries. Much effort goes into weeding and cleaning the cemetery prior to the Memorial Day weekend when a celebration consisting of classes in traditional island crafts and dances are taught, a luau is prepared and served, and other activities take place.Flags which represent the isles of the Pacific flank the monument and on Sunday a LDS church meeting is held where visitors reflect upon both the faith and perseverance of the original settlers and the symbolism of their sacrifice in the modern world of Polynesians. Today, Iosepa remains unique among Mormon settlements in the American West, a distinction recognized far beyond the borders of the Mormon West.73

72 U.S. Census of Population (Washington: Government Printing Office,various years). 73 Michelle Nuhius, “Luau in the Desert,” The Christian Science Monitor, May 31, 2007.

A History of Children’s Hospitals in Utah

By BARBARA MANDLECO AND CARMA MILLER

Children’s hospitals have a long history, both in England and the United States. The first children’s hospital in the English-speaking world, the Hospital for Sick Children at 49 Great Ormond Street in London, England,was founded by Dr. Charles West on Valentine’s Day, 1852, and within three years, children’s hospitals were established in America. In 1855 Dr. Francis West Lewis founded the first American pediatric hospital, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, dedicated to finding cures and treating illnesses and injuries specific to young people. The Children’s Hospital of Boston was founded in 1869, and a year later the Children’s Hospital National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., opened.The effort to establish children’s hospitals moved westward and the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, the seventh oldest pediatric hospital in the United Statesand the first west of the Mississippi was founded in 1879. The Children’s Hospital in Denver began as a “tent hospital” in the summer of 1897. On the West Coast children’s hospitals were established in Los Angeles in 1901, Seattle in 1907, and Oakland in 1912.1

Children’s hospitals were needed in the

Patients on the sunny south side of Primary Childrenʼs Hospital in the 1950s.

Barbara Mandleco is a professor in the College of Nursing, Brigham Young University. Carma Miller is an assistant professor of nursing at Salt Lake Community College. The authors would like to thank the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies, Brigham Young University, for funding their study.

1 National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions, “History of Children’s Hospitals” (2008), http://www. childrenshospitals.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Facts_and_Trends& TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTOE=12693 (accessed April 29, 2008).

PRIMARY CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER

Intermountain West as well, and two such hospitals, Primary Children’s Medical Center (earlier known as Primary Children’s Hospital) and Shriners Hospital for Children Intermountain (earlier recognized as Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children), founded in Utah during the first quarter of the twentieth century, met this need. Although pediatric units were found in Utah hospitals, and a third children’s hospital for children with polio was planned and built in the mid-1940s on the University of Utah campus, it was never occupied.2

Five major themes are important in an examination of the history of children’s hospitals in Utah.First,the steadfast commitment to caring for children; second,providing charity care as not-for-profit organizations; third,the leadership of strong, dedicated women (many of whom were nurses); fourth, the role the hospitals fill in furthering treatment, research, and education; and fifth, the child-centeredenvironmentprovided for patients.

Until 1911, children in Utah were cared for in the general wards of hospitals. After witnessing a crippled child’s struggle on a Salt Lake City street, Louie B. Felt, the president of the Primary Association of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and her counselor, May Anderson, asked Primary Association volunteers to sponsor a children’s department at the Groves LDS Hospital. 3 Consequently, LDS church President Joseph F. Smith approved the Primary Association’splansto secure donations to furnish and maintain “two rooms, one for boys and one for girls, each to contain at least three cots and other necessary furnishings” at Groves LDS Hospital,and between 1911 and 1921, the Primary Association received $4,871.48 to care for forty-six children.4

However, Felt and Anderson, concerned that children were not receiving care specific to their age in the adult hospitals, believed a hospital dedicated solely to the care of children was needed. President Heber J. Grant shared their concerns and in June 1921 he sent the two Primary Association leaders to study children’s convalescent and day care centers in the eastern United States. After visiting the New York Graduate School and Hospital, they concludedthat, with significant financial support, a similar hospital could be built in Salt Lake City. Consequently, upon their return, Felt and Anderson met with President Grant and proposed thata children’s convalescent hospital be built in Salt Lake City.5

In response to Felt and Anderson’s request, LDS church authorities made

2 The hospital was to be called “Utah Crippled Children’s Hospital.” The project never came to fruition due to cost overruns. The building was instead used to house the Utah State Health Department. See “Polio hospital building cost up 50%,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 13, 1947.

3 Louie B. Felt, “An Appreciation,” The Children’s Friend, 11 (June 1912):192.

4 “The Hospital Movement,” The Children’s Friend 10 (July 1911):366; “Hospital movement in behalf of children,” The Children’s Friend 21 (February1922): 65-69.

5 Marba C. Josephson, “…Of Such Is The Kingdom of Heaven. The Primary Children’s Hospital,” The Improvement Era 55 (October 1952): 714-17, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 744-45.

available two homes on North Temple Street in Salt Lake City. One home was remodeled as a thirtyfive-bed facility and named the LDS Children’s Convalescent Home and Day Nursery. The other home was used as a residence for nurses who worked at the hospital. The facility opened on May12, 1922, the 102nd anniversary of Florence Nightingale’s birth. Children who had undergone surgery at the Groves LDS Hospital now receivedextended convalescent care that was more child-centered and provided more freedom than found in a regular hospital routine.6 The new facility also provided childcare during the day for children whose mothers worked at the hospital.

In 1923, the name of the hospital changed, and “Day Nursery” was removed, becoming “LDS Children’s Convalescent Hospital.“ In 1934,the year the hospital was officially incorporated, the name was changed to “Primary Children’s Hospital” to reflect the type of care that had evolved over the past decade.7

Prior to World War II,care delivery in the hospital was similar to other pediatric hospitals throughout the United States and Canada. Parents and families often were viewed as a hindranceand as possible sources of infection. Therefore, parental visits were limited to two afternoons a month and siblings rarely visited at all. However, a fresh air porch was located in the hospital and children’s beds were often moved there. Since many hospitalized children lived outside the Salt Lake City area, family visits were difficult and scarce; the average stay was lengthy—158 days. In fact, some children remained in the hospital for one to two years and one child with osteogenesis imperfecta was hospitalized for thirteen years.8

During the first thirty years of the hospital’s operation,5,907 inpatient

6 Conrad A. Harward“A history of the growth and development of the Primary Association of the LDS Church from 1878 to 1928,” (Master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1976), 122.

7 Laura Winder to Carma Miller, March 16, 2007, in possession of authors.

8 “A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center” (1997), Unpublished document, Primary Children’s Medical Center Public Relations Department copy in possession of authors; Laura Winder, Primary Children Medical Center public relations, to Carma Miller, September 16, 2002, in possession of authors; Osteogenesis Imperfecta isa condition causing extremely fragile bones.

Louie B. Felt, President of the LDS Church Primary Association, (right) and her counselor, May Anderson, (left). PRIMARY

and 3,498 outpatient children from all over the world, regardless of ethnicity, religion,or nationality, weretreated at this hospital. In 1938,the need for an updated facility and more space became apparent.9 That year local business leaders presented LDS church President Heber J. Grant with one thousand silver dollars in commemoration of his eighty-second birthday. He donated the money for construction ofa new children’s hospital and each of the silver dollars was made into a paperweight and sold for one hundred dollars. However, the challenge of President Grant’s subsequent illness and death in 1945 and the shortage of building materials and labor during World War II, slowed construction on the new building.10

Ground was broken on April 1, 1949, during the annual Primary Association Conference. On April 5, a year later, the cornerstone was laid by LDS church President George Albert Smith. The cornerstone contained the names of financial contributors, a Heber J. Grant souvenir paperweight, as well as historical pictures and files. The new seventy-bed facility,designed by Utahn George Cannon Young and located on two and one-half acres overlooking the Salt Lake Valley at 11th Avenue and E Street, was dedicated in March 1952. President David O. McKay of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints addressed the five hundred invited guests who attended the ceremony conducted by LaVern W. Parmley, general president of the church’s Primary Association. Other participants included Frances G. Bennett, a member of the church’s Primary general board and vice president of the hospital board of trustees, as well as LeGrand Richards, the Presiding Bishop of the church, and Harold B. Lee of the Council of the Twelve Apostles and an advisor to the Primary Association.11

The new $1.25 million building was equipped with a library, occupational therapy department, playrooms, and a physical therapy and outpatient clinic as well patient rooms, operating rooms, and an X-ray department.All patient roomswere located on the sunny south side, and sun porches and a playground were located on the flat part of the roof.12 The interior was decorated with murals painted by Utahns Jane Swensen andArnold Freiberg.

During the next several years, Primary Children’s Hospital was challenged by increasing numbers of patientswhoneeded medical services. In addition, the focus of care at the hospital gradually changed from care of children with chronic conditions (often the result of polio)to acute care requiring updated services and equipment. In 1961, when acute care was

9 Josephson, “Of Such Is the Kingdom of Heaven”; Harward, “A history of the growth and development of the Primary Association.”

10 “LDS president breaks ground for new children’s hospital,” The Salt Lake Tribune,April 2, 1949.

11 “Any pennies to spare?” The Salt Lake Tribune Magazine, January 30, 1949; “A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”; Harward, “A history of the growth and development of the Primary Association”; “The Primary Children’s Hospital,” [Souvenir booklet] (1952), Special Collections, Brigham Young University Library; Carol Cornwall Madsen and Susan Staker Oman, Sisters and Little Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1979) 170, 172; “New hospital is dedicated,” The Deseret News, March 3, 1952.

12 “Workers start to equip S. L. hospital,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 5, 1951.

UTAH HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

added, the hospital size increased from seventy to eighty-four beds. In 1966, a two million dollar expansion on the west side of the building doubled the bed capacity and created several new departments, including an emergency room. In 1969, Primary Children’s Hospital began its preadmission orientation for children with its “Lemonade Party,” the first,or among the first such orientation programfor children in the country. At the party, children scheduled for surgery went to the hospital to watch a film, dress in scrubs, sniff anesthesia “scents” and tour the post operative area.

In 1973, the name was changed to Primary Children’s Medical Center to reflect the broader care and services provided patients and families.LDS church leaderslater announced the operation of its many hospitals was no longer central to its mission,andconsequently all hospital interests were divested. As a result, in 1975Primary Children’s Medical Center became part of Intermountain Health Care, a newly created, independent, nonprofit corporation.13

As new services were added, a larger facility was needed and plans for a new hospitalwere announced in 1986. Four years later, on April 23,1990, the new Primary Children’s Medical Center opened on the University of Utah campus adjacent to the School of Medicine.Within one year of opening, a thirty-bed infant unit was opened; additional beds were also added to the rehabilitation and newborn intensive care units. In 1999, the emergency department increased by ten beds, and a twenty-six-bed rapid treatment area for children needing to be in the hospital for less than twentyfour hours wasopened.14

Children were invited to submit drawings to brighten the inside of the hospital. Of the more than fifty thousand drawings submitted, one hundred and fifty were enlarged and framed, ten were rendered into large murals, and twenty-six were selected to represent the letters of the alphabet. Utah artist Dennis Smith created a large whimsical sculpture that was part boat, part machine, part city, and included thirty-five inch high sculptures of children. The focal point of the sculpture was a large water wheel that turned as water flowed over it.15

13 In 1974 the First Presidency announced that the LDS church’s fifteen hospitals would be donated and turned over to a new nonprofit organization so that the church could devote “the full effort of [its] Health Services…to the health needs of the worldwide church.” While noting that the hospitals were “a vigorous and financially viable enterprise,” the First Presidency emphasized that “the operation of hospitals is not central to the mission of the Church.” The First Presidency further indicated that with the expansion of the church in many nations it was “difficult to justify the provision of curative services in a single, affluent, geographical locality,” news release, September 6, 1974, http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ daily/health/Hospital_EOM.htm (accessed August 2, 2007).Laura Winder to Carma Miller, September 17, 2002; Madsen and Oman, Sisters and Little Saints, 172-73; “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics” (2008), www.intermountainhealthcare.org/ xp/primary/aboutus/ history. xml (accessed April 29, 2008).

14 L. George Veasy in Henry P. Plenk, Medicine in the Beehive State (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press1992), 393-415; “A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”; “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics.”

15 “Art brightens children’s hospital,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 28, 1990.

While Primary Children’s Hospital grew from three rooms located in the Groves LDS Hospital to a modern 235 bed facility, the Salt Lake City Shriners Hospital for Children also became an important institution for providing health care to children. The Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (Shriners) was founded in 1872 for the purpose of fraternal fun and fellowship. In time,charitable endeavors, especially providing free medical care to needy children became a hallmark of the organization. This philanthropic endeavor was the direct result of a 1919 reminder by the imperial potentate that “our order will never find its soul until it unites in some great humanitarian project and erects a living monument as evidence of a worthy purpose underlying the organization.” 16 Consequently, the Shriners Hospitals system was established to treat orthopedic injuries and birth defects in children. Support came from a yearly two dollar assessment from each Shriner.

Today, there are twenty-two Shriners Hospitals located throughout the United States. The first hospital opened September 16, 1922,in Shreveport, Louisiana, and the eighth, located in Salt Lake City,opened January 22, 1925. The national board of the Shrine believed the Salt Lake City area needed children’s care focusing on musculoskeletal problems including congenital hip, tuberculosis of the spine, and rheumatoid arthritis.17

Initially, the Shriners rented space in the south wing of Salt Lake City’s

16 Lottie Felkner, The St. Mark’s Hospital School of Nursing Story. (Salt Lake City: unpublished manuscript sponsored by the St. Mark’s Hospital Nurses’ Alumni Association, 1970), copy in possession of Lottie Felkner; “Added help, hope and health assured intermountain crippled children,” The Salt Lake Tribune, May 3, 1947; “Shriners Hospitals: Improving the Lives of Children,” http://www.shrinershq. org/Hospitals/_Hospitals_for_Children/history/ (accessed June 3, 2008).

17 A Short History of the Shrine and Shriners Hospitals (Tampa.: Shriners International Headquarters, 2001). Shriners International Headquarters,and in possession of authors;Charles Swindler, MD, former Assistant Chief of Staff (Shriners) to Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller, December 11, 2003.

The LDS Childrenʼs Convalescent Home and Day Nursery opened May 12, 1922.

PRIMARY CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER

St. Mark’s Hospital for a twenty-bed temporary mobile unit “. . . where all special services, such as laboratory, x-ray, operating room, anesthesia and dietary are provided.”18 The mobile unit was divided into boys and girls sections with a long,wide,windowed veranda providing a sunny, bright environment.

As requests for treatment increased, the Shriners National Board of Trustees authorized construction of a new hospital in Salt Lake City in 1945.The authorization reversed a trustee vote in January of that year to close the Salt Lake City facility and transfer the patients to Amarillo, Texas, where a new hospital was to be built to serve the southwestern states. Pressure to build the Salt Lake City hospital came from community leaders such as Dr. John Edward Carver, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Ogden, Milton E. Lyman, Salt Lake City Treasurer, Christian H. Fischer, a local coal merchant, Salt Lake City physician Dr. H. P. Kirtley, and Lincoln G. Kelly, chairman of the local Shriners board of governors.Property for the new hospital was obtained in 1946 through an act of Congress when President Harry S. Truman, himself a Shriner, signed the document deeding approximately seven acres of land from the Fort Douglas military reservation to the Shrine. A provision was included requiring the land revert to the government upon sale or relocation of the hospital.

A ground-breaking ceremony for the new 1.2 million dollar building took place on May 3, 1947, under the supervision of Lincoln Kelly. Five thousand people attended the ceremony that included a parade of Shrine temple members from the intermountain area and a presentation of the history and legends of the Mystic Shrine by actors from the El Korah temple. Other participants included John D. McGilvray, vice chairman of the national hospital board of trustees, and Mrs. Gertrude R. Folendorf, national hospital administrator. 19 Two years later on June 18, 1949, the cornerstone was laid on the northeast corner of the building.

During the cornerstone ceremony, a sealed metal casket containing the days’ memorials was placed inside the three thousand pound Colorado granite cornerstone, agift from Orion, Clyde,and George Watson, nobles

18 Ralph T. Richards, “The Shriners’ hospitals for crippled children” in The Story of the Shriners’ Hospitals forCrippled Children [Souvenir booklet] (Salt Lake City:The Sahara Club, 1949); “Shriners open hospital unit in Salt Lake today,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 21, 1925. During the early years of the mobile hospital, several prominent physicians and nurses provided care to children. Dr. A. L. Huether of Toronto, Canada, an orthopedic surgeon, was the first chief surgeon, and held that post until the 1940s. Mrs. Laura Tolander Bishop was the first superintendent (administrator) of the mobile unit. Mrs. Gertrude R. Folendorf, superintendent of the San Francisco hospital, was “loaned” to assist in organizing and opening the Salt Lake unit. Miss Mary E. Hale was the first superintendent of nurses, Miss Mabel Torgerson the supervisor during the day shift, and Miss Nina Williamson the night shift supervisor. Felkner and Larsen, The St. Mark’s Hospital School of Nursing Story; “Lame children will be helped,” The Salt Lake Tribune, January 20, 1925.

19 The Salt Lake Tribune—“Shriners map May 3 rites for hospital,”, February 13, 1947; “Shriners to break ground for hospital on May 3,” April 3, 1947; “Shrine pledges handicapped ‘best hospital,’”and “Shriners go on parade in S. L. today,”May 3, 1947; and“40,000 cheer Shriners in S. L. parade,”, May 4, 1947.

of the El Jebel Temple in Denver. Following an old Masonic ceremony, wine, corn and oil (symbols of plenty, joy and peace) were poured, and Grand Master Newell Dayton and Deputy Grand Master John Stark leveled the mortar over the upper surface of the cornerstone. Dr. John Edward Carver, a senior member of the Intermountain Hospital’s board of governors, delivered an address. Others attending the ceremony included Utah’s Secretary of State Heber Bennion, Jr., Salt Lake City Mayor Earl J. Glade, Ogden Mayor Harmon W. Peery, Dr. A. L. Huether, chief surgeon for more than twenty years, vicechairman of the national hospital board of trustees John McGilvray from San Francisco, and Mrs. Frances Simpson from Limon, Colorado, who had donated more than fifty thousand dollarsin support of the hospital’s policy of treating children without restrictions to their race, creed or color.20

Construction was completed on December 1, 1950, and the hospital opened March 1, 1951,when twenty children were transferred from the mobile unit at St. Mark’s hospital to the new forty-bed hospital.21 Regarded as one of the finest children’s units in the United States, the buildingwas dedicated debt free on May 26, 1951,and officially named Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, Intermountain Unit. The new hospital contained two large wards, one for boys and one for girls, as well as two isolation rooms, a kitchen, a school room, occupational and physiotherapy rooms, sun rooms and playrooms, offices for the medical staff,living quar-

20 “Grand master to conduct hospital rites,” The Salt Lake Tribune , May 19, 1949; “For crippled children. Colorado nobles send stone for Shriners’ new hospital,” June 3, 1949; “Masons lay child hospital’s cornerstone,” June 19, 1949; “Shriners chart S. L. hospital service today,” June 18, 1949; and “For crippled children. Masonic rites scheduled at Shriners Hospital,”June 14, 1949.

21 “Shriners open new hospital March 1,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 1951.

The Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, Intermountain Unit, opened May 26, 1951.

SHRINER’S HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, INTERMOUNTAIN UNIT

ters for eighteen nurses,treatment rooms and cubicles, as well as a sewing room with an outside entrance for the women who mended and sewed for the children. The top floor contained an apartment, typical of all Shriners hospitals at the time, where the hospital administrator lived.22 The interior included three clear plastic carved bas-reliefs of a circus parade in the outpatient reception room, large murals of well-known fairy tales, including the Ugly Duckling, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Jack and the Beanstalk, Hansel and Gretel, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs on the second floor, and floor tiles, which depicted nursery rhyme characters such as Humpty Dumpty and Peter Rabbit.

By the 1980s, the building was no longer adequate. Officials considered several plans: moving the hospital to the University of Utah campus, remodeling and expanding the existing building, or demolishing the 1951 hospital and constructing a new one. Each option presented challenges. According to the original deed granting the hospital property to the Shriners, if they vacated the property, it would revert to Salt Lake City. Senator Jake Garn successfully sponsored a congressional bill removing the reversion clause, which would then allow proceeds from the sale of the property to be used for a new facility. However, local homeowners in the neighborhood objected to an expanded facility. Ultimately, Shriner authorities decided to demolish the old hospital and construct a new forty-bed hospital on the same site. The thirty-three million dollar new hospital, designed in consultation with the Greater Avenues Community Council, was completed in 1995,and featuredprivate and semi-private rooms, an in-house prosthetics and orthotics department, a hydrotherapy pool, a movement analysis laboratory, a three thousand square foot indoor play area, operating rooms and four apartments for parents and other family members.23 The lobby and second floor activity room areas are decorated with a large five-section mural entitled, “Love of Work, Gift of Health,” created by Kenneth Gore. In 1996, the Salt Lake City hospital became known as Shriners Hospital for Children Intermountain Unit when all Shriner hospitals were given the same name.24

Charity care remains a vital part of both Primary Children’s Medical Center and the Shriners Hospital for Children. Since its founding in1922, charity care at Primary Children’s Medical Centerhas been available to

22

“Shrine Hospital, a children’s wonderland, monument to humanitarian organization,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 26, 1951, and “Shrine Hospital construction now getting finishing touches,” January 8, 1951; Charles Swindler to Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller, December 11, 2003; Sherman Coleman to Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller, August 8, 2002.

23 “Garn boosts S.L. Shriners’ effort to get new crippled children’s unit,”and“Shriners to Build BrandNew Hospital,” The Salt Lake Tribune, December 5, 1992; “Shriner’s Hospital is Talking to University About Building New Facility on Campus,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 25, 1987; During a conversation with the author on August 6, 2007, Jake Garn stated that he became involved in securing the property because he had a special place in his heart for children’s hospitals, and because he was on a Senate subcommittee that had jurisdiction over public lands.

24

“A Short History of the Shrine and Shriners Hospitals, ” 17.

children whose families live in the surrounding states and who are unable to pay for care. When the hospital was founded the only restrictions for admission were that boys be under the age of twelve and girls be under the age of fourteen and had financial needs. Now, children from other states or countries can apply for and receive charity care on a case-by-case basis.In 2007, the hospital provided more than eight million dollars in charity care services, although most children receiving treatment are from families who have medical insurance or who are able to pay for hospitalization.25

Shriners Hospitals for Children accept patients free of charge. However, they must beeighteen years of age or younger, require orthopedic or reconstructive burn care, and benefit from the hospital services. Care is also limited to those for whom “treatments at another facility would pose a financial hardship.”26

Both hospitals demonstrate creative methods of raising funds to meet the challenge of supporting charitable care. Initially, funds for charity care came from the local area, and the methods of obtaining these funds were rather traditional. However, today, charity funds for both hospitals come through

25 “Work begins on convalescent home,” The Deseret News,October 22, 1921; “Primary Children’s Medical Center: The Child, First and Always,” Primary Children’s Medical Center Public Relations Department, 1999, in possession of the authors; “Primary Children’s Medical Center Mission and Commitment to Charity Care,” inhttp://intermountainhealthcare.org/xp/public/ primary/aboutus/mission.xml (accessed June 3, 2008); “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics.”

26 “The Minaret,” (1996): 6, in possession of the authors.

27“A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”; Ralph T. Richards, Of

CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS IN UTAH

The Boyʼs Ward at Shriners Hospital c. 1952.

SHRINER’S HOSPITAL

regional, national and international initiativesthat often utilize modern technology in their efforts.

For example, from 1911 to 1921 the children’s ward at the Groves LDS Hospital was funded by the Primary Association of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with voluntary contributions from the officers and members of the Primary. In 1922, contributions were expanded and became more creative when Primary leaders encouraged children between four andtwelve years of age to contribute “Birthday Pennies”—one penny for each year of age on their birthday—in support of the hospital. Also during these early years, donations of clothing, bottled fruit,bed furnishings, table linens, dolls, stuffed animals, night gowns and pajamas were made. Gifts of food from various LDS wards and stakes also helped support the hospital, as did donations of underclothing, socks, diapers, dresses, boys’ white shirts, slacks, overalls, hair ribbons, bibs, bath and hand towels, and laundry and hand soap. In addition, influential clubs, individuals, and organizations made donations to support the hospital.27

In 1934,as hospital costs mounted, the yearly “Penny Parade” fund raising drive began. Primary Association volunteers called at church members’ homes in February to ask for contributions equal to one penny for each year of age of all family members. In 1948, the “Dimes for Bricks” campaign was launched to raise money for a new hospital building. During this campaign,distinctive coin cards that each held five dimes were created with an architect’s sketch of the 1950s-era hospital on the flap. One dime bought one brick for the new building. More than twenty thousand dollars were raised in this effort with the purchase of 203,303 bricks.28 In 1958, with increased hospitalization costs and the additional services offered, donations of two or more pennies for each birthday were requested.29

During the 1970s various funds and fundraising campaigns were instituted, including remembrance and memorial funds, an endowment program, and the “Festival of Trees,” a popular and financially successful annual event whereChristmas trees are decorated, displayed, and sold to support the hospital. Other fundraising campaigns have included telethons supported by KSL Radio and Television stations. Revenue from the hospital’s gift shop and espresso cart and countless hours by volunteers also support the charitable work.30

Medicine, Hospitals and Doctors. (Salt Lake City: Utah Medical Association and LDS Hospital – Deseret Foundation and University of Utah Health Sciences Center, 1953); Selma Miller,“Primary children support hospital “Love Pennies” provide ample fund kiddies are happy tho suffering,” The Salt Lake Telegram, March 9, 1924; Isabelle S. Ross, The L.D.S. Children’s Hospital. Radio Services, Auspices of the Primary Association General BoardFebruary 12, 1933; “Primary urges donations for Children’s Hospital,” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 9, 1949.

28 “LDS Primary to send out ‘dimes’ card,” The Salt Lake Tribune, April 30, 1949; MadsenandOman, Sisters and Little Saints, 130.

29

“The How of the Primary Children’s Hospital,” (no date), in possession of the authors.

30 “The How of Primary Children’s Hospital”; “$10 million drive started at hospital,” The Deseret News Church News, January 10, 1970; Laura Winder to Carma Miller, February 4, 2005; “A Few Moments from

Shriners Hospital for Children refuses assistance from federal, state or other governmental agencies, nor does the hospital accept insurance payments for the cost of a child’s care provided by the hospitals. Financial support comes from an annual contribution from all Shrine members, an endowment fund, and various fund raising efforts.31 Shrine members and volunteer groups also provide and mend clothing, donate food, and give special parties. Daughters of the Nile, Junior League, Grey Ladies, Ladies of the Oriental Shrine, Order of the Eastern Star, DeMolay, Job’s Daughters and students from area colleges and universities read and tell stories, supervise play, crafts, and recreational activities,and provide other help as needed. In addition, Shrine members often act as hospital hosts, guides, skilled laborers, or help transport patients to and from the hospital. Most Shrine temples also sponsor fund-raising events for the hospital in their area, which may include horse shows, miscellaneous sport and social events, newspaper drives, and the Shrine circus which began in Michigan in 1906.32

The Shriners Hospitalfor Children also benefits from wider reaching fund raising efforts, including the annual collegiate East West Shrine Football Game, played since 1925, which to datehas raised more than fourteen million dollars.In addition to this football game, many other high school and college football games are played throughout the country including the Potato Bowl, the Maine Lobster Bowl, the Pretzel Bowl, and the Maple Sugar Bowl to benefit Shriners Hospitals for Children.33

Over time the Shrine organization has been challenged asmembers have aged and died while the cost of care for children has increased. Beginning in 1983, donations to the hospitalswere accepted from members of the community at large. Gifts and bequests from citizens interested in the philanthropy and designated charitable fund raising events administered by the Shrine, such as “Children . . . The Heart of It All” poetry book, men’s ties and lady’s pins, as well as the “Reaching Out for Medical Miracles” campaigns have also become important to the organization in supporting charity care.34

The success of the children’s hospitals over many decades is due, in large part, to the outstanding leadership of many women. Louie B. Felt, the first president of the LDS Church Primary Association, and her counselor and

the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”; Children’s Miracle Network, “About Us,” http://www.childrensmiraclenetwork.org/web/aboutus.htm (accessed June 3, 2008); “Primary Children’s Medical Center; History and Statistics.”

31 Elaine F. Shimberg, A Heritage of Helping: Shriners Hospitals, (Tampa: Shriners Hospitals for Children, 1996); “The Story of Shriners Hospitals,” (Tampa: Shriners International Headquarters, 2001).

32 “A Short History of the Shrine and Shriners Hospitals.”

33 “The East West Shrine Game: About the Game” http://www.shrinegame.com/about.php (accessed March 5, 2007); “A Short History of the Shrine and Shriners Hospitals.”

34 “Shriners plan special day,” The Salt Lake Tribune, October 1, 1983; “Children….The Heart of It All Fundraising program introduced,” http://www.shrinershq.org/whatsnewarch/archives02/heartofitall602.html (accessed August 10, 2005); “First Lady Elaine’s program will benefit research efforts:Reaching out for medical miracles,”http://support.shrinershospitals.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FirstLady (accessed March 5, 2007).

35 Harward, “A history of the growth and development of the Primary Association.”

successor, May Anderson, conceived the idea of a Utah hospital for children. Their vision included a two-fold plan to benefit children bygiving compassionate service to children suffering from physical handicap, and providing young LDS children the opportunity to receive joy and satisfaction by giving to those less fortunate.35 Their efforts resulted in the first children’s ward being opened at the Groves LDS Hospital and later, the establishment of the LDS Children’s Convalescent Home and Day Nursery.

Anna Rosenkilde, a graduate of the LDS Hospital nurses training programand a former army nurse was another early, dedicated, and strong leader. Miss Rosenkilde began her career in Salt Lake City at the LDS Children’s Convalescent Home and Day Nursery in April 1922 (just prior to its opening on May 11) and retired in 1946.36 Known as “Mama Rose” to the young patients,she supervised graduate nurses, nurses’ aides, cooks, janitors, orderlies and medical students. Because few parents were able to visit their hospitalized children frequently, she wrote personal notes to the parents of each patient every month, reporting on the child’s general health, medical progress, schoolwork, and social interaction. In fact, nurse Rosenkilde’s eloquent plea to LDS church President Heber J. Grant in November 1937led to his prompt and generous pledge of a thousand dollarsto launch the funding drive for a new hospital.37 Even though nurse Rosenkilde retired from Primary Children’s Hospitalin 1946, she did not end her mission of caring

Anna Rosenkilde, first superintendent of LDS Childrens Convalescent Home and Day Center. After her retirement, she worked at Shrinerʼs Hospital.

36 Laura Winder to Carma Miller, September 19, 2005, in possession of the authors.

37 MaryJack, “Pres. Grant pledged support of erection of Primary Hospital,” The Deseret News Church Section January 23, 1952.

38 “Shrine pledges handicapped ‘best hospital’”; Correspondence to the authors from Gloria Larsen,

for children. Soon thereafter, she began working as a night nurse at Shriners Hospital for Childrenand remained in that position for several years.

LaVern Parmley, who became General Primary President in 1951, was another early leader at Primary Children’s Hospital. She was a strong and vocal advocate for the hospital serving as chair of the hospital’s Board of Trustees for thirteen years from 1961 through 1974 and continued her service to the hospital until the LDS church divested its ownership of the hospital a year later.

The Shriners Hospital for Children has also been led by a number of strong, visionary women, most of whom began their careers as nurses. Gertrude R. Folendorf, superintendent of the San Francisco Shriners Hospital for Children, assisted in organizing and opening the mobile unit in Salt Lake City in the early 1920s and later became a national hospital administrator.

Other early superintendents who devoted long days and many hours to the Salt Lake City Shriners Hospital for Children during the 1940s include Marie Scharn, Marie Bowman,and Mrs. E. Peterson.Miss Anna Grace Williams, a nurse with administrative training, and the hospital superintendent from the late 1940s to the 1960s, according to one observer,“ran the hospital like a southern plantation, was a good administrator, quite fair, [and] they [Shriners Organization] thoughta woman could run a children’s hospital better than a man, with more compassion.” Miss Williams and Clara Wallace, director of nursing, instituted a program in 1951 in cooperation with the Holy Cross Hospital School of Nursing for student nurses to obtain clinical experience at Shriners. Maude Horne, whofollowed Williams as hospital superintendent, was described aspowerful, quite structured, and very strict.38

Marie Holm, a former army nurse,was administrator at Shriners Hospital from the late 1960s until the early 1990s. She also made a significant contribution. Fran Watson, a long-time nurse at Shriners, described RN, former Shriners staff nurse, June 25, 2002; Fran Watson, RN, former Shriners staff nurse, July 9, 2003; Charles Swindler, December 11, 2003; and L. George Veasy,August 6, 2002.

39 Fran Watson to Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller, July 9, 2003, in

possession of authors; Charles

LaVern Parmley, General President of the LDS Church Primary Association and chair of the Primary Childrenʼs Board of Trustees from 1961 to 1974.

PRIMARY CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER

Holm as one who was “very tender and cared deeply for the children and their families” as well as“a woman before her time.” Among her initiatives were the construction of sun porches on the boys’ and girls’ ward so the children could go outside for fresh air, allowing parents to stay overnight at the hospital with their children, expanding visiting hours, and encouraging staff to become patient advocates.39

Since their founding, both Primary Children’s and Shriners hospitals have filled a necessary and complementary role in the community while gradually expanding the geographical area of service and extending educational experience to a variety of students.Shriners Hospital was initially established to serve children living in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico.Today, care is also provided to children living in Canada and thenorthern Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua; outreach clinics are available in Boise, Denver, Phoenix, and Juarez, Mexico. In addition to meeting the challenge of providing care to a vast geographic area, the hospital has developed a telemedicine project allowing physicians to conduct patient evaluations at remote sites within the geographic area served. At Shriners Hospital, 9,300 inpatient/outpatient visits were treated by eight full-time and five part-time medical staff in 2006.

At Primary Children’s most patients are from Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming,and Montana.40 However, if specialized care is needed, children may come from anywhere in the world. Care is also provided through a number of outreach clinics located in cities throughout the Intermountain West. In 2007Primary Children’s admitted more than 13,000 inpatients and almost 156,000 outpatient registrations were treated by the more than 750members on the medical staff.

Both hospitals initially treated children with chronic orthopedic conditions. Today,Shrinersfocuses primarily on orthopedic or musculoskeletal diseases/conditions including virtually all pediatric orthopedic problems (except acute trauma) such as osteogenesis imperfecta, spina bifida, and cerebral palsy,scoliosis, skeletal growth abnormalities, neuromuscular disorders, metabolic bone disease, hand disorders, limb deficiencies and disorders, limb length inequality problems, and burn and other scar revisions. Shrinersalso provides inpatient and outpatient services, social services, surgery, casts, braces, artificial limbs, x-rays and physical and occupational and speech therapy to the second largest geographic area in the Shriners Hospitals system.41 Several clinics are also held every month

Swindler to Barbara Mandleco and Carma Miller, December 11, 2003, in possession of authors.

40 “A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”; “Primary Children’s Medical Center”; “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics.”

41 “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics”; Kevin Martin, RN, Director, Patient Care Servicesto Barbara Mandleco, March 13, 2007, in possession of authors; “Care Specialties, at Shriners Hospital for Children-Intermountain,” http://www.shrinershq.org/Hospitals/Salt_Lake_City/conditons/ (accessed March 5, 2007); Shimberg, A heritage of helping: Shriners hospitals’; At the Intermountain Shriners

Primary Childrenʼs Medical Center opened April 23, 1990.

for a variety of orthopedic/musculoskeletal conditions (cerebral palsy, osteogenesis imperfecta, plastics, neurology, scoliosis, rehabilitation, telemedicine).Finally, Shriners patients are treated collaboratively at Primary Children’s when necessary, especially when children need specialized care (cardiac, respiratory, neurological) not available at the Shriners facility.

At Primary Children’s treatment is no longer limited to orthopedic or musculoskeletal conditions, and most children cared for at the facility are acutely ill. This change reflects a response to the challenges inherent in the kinds of diseases/conditions affecting children today, and consequent treatment advances. Today, PCMC is a major tertiary care center,with the highest acuity level (the measure of complexity of condition combined with severity of illness) of any hospital in the state of Utah, and received from the American College of Surgeons in 2004, Level I Trauma Center, Pediatric verification. PCMC is the only hospital in its five state service area verified at this high level for children and in 2003 was selected by Child Magazine as one of the top ten children’s hospitals in the nation.42

Health care services at Primary Children’s have also expanded to meet ever-changing needs of children and their families. Psychiatric services initially began in 1968 with a sixteen-bed inpatient unit, and two years later a residential treatment center was added. The Newborn Intensive Care Unit opened in 1978, and cardiac balloon pumping for children was pioneered in 1984. The first pediatric heart transplant was performed in July of 1991, and the four bed Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, in affiliation with the University of UtahBone Marrow Transplantation

Hospital where patients are treated like family http://www.shrinershq.org/whatsnewarch/archives00/ intermountain4-00.html (accessed August 10, 2005).

42 “Primary Children’s Medical Center History and Statistics;” Laura Winder to Carma Miller, September 17, 2002, in possession of authors;.Maureen P. Sangiorgio, “The best children’s hospitals in America,” Child, 18(2003): 102-14.

43 “A Few Moments from the History of Primary Children’s Medical Center”;“Primary Children’s

PRIMARY CHILDREN’S MEDICAL CENTER

Program, opened in 1994. The Pediatric Liver Transplant Program, in affiliation with the LDS Hospital Liver Transplantation Program, began in 1996. In addition, Primary Children’s is a major heart center caring for children who have congenital or acquired heart disease, and the hospitalneurosurgeons are nationally recognizedfor their skill and innovation in surgical treatment of children’s brain and spinal cord defects, tumors, and injuries. More than fortypediatric specialty clinics and more than sixty medical specialties and subspecialties are provided. The oldest specialty clinic, the Spina Bifida Clinic,began in 1963; one of the newest is the Pediatric Sports and Dance Medicine Clinic. The air transport team, later named Life Flight, began in 1979, and the first outpatient satellite clinic opened in 1982.43

Medical research has become important at Primary Children’s and Shriners. Children’s clinical research began at Shriners in the early 1920s and expanded in the 1960s when funds were allocated directly for basic and clinical research enabling the hospital to earn an international reputation in orthopedic medicine and research. Most current and recent research being conducted at Shrinersfocuses onNF1 (Neurofibromatosis Type 1). These projects, funded by the national Shriners organization, involve geneticists from the University of Utah and Shriners Hospital. Research efforts at Primary Children’sinclude the genetics of birth defects and infectious disease, chronic illness (especially asthma and diabetes), mental retardation and developmental disabilities, injury prevention, and pediatric medicines.In addition, the hospital is a partner in children’s cancer research with the Huntsman Cancer Institute, and has participated in the national Children’s Cancer Group for more than thirty years. Physicians are also involved in examining the causes and best treatment approaches for acquired and congenital heart problems in children.44

Education of health care professionals remains an important function for both hospitals. Several thousand physicians have received residency education or post graduate fellowship training at the hospitals and both facilities maintain a strong link with each other and the University of Utah Medical Center and School of Medicine. Since 1977, Primary Children’s has been the primary pediatric teaching facility for the University of Utah School of Medicine.45 In the past, students attending Holy Cross Hospital School of Nursing received clinical experience at Shriners. Today, University of Utah, Brigham Young University, Salt Lake Community College, Westminster College, Weber State University, Davis Applied Technology College, and

Medical Center: The Child, First and Always”; “Primary Children’s Medical Center; History and Statistics”.

44 “A Short History of the Shrine and Shriners Hospitals”; Shimberg, AHeritage ofHelping; “Primary Children’s Medical Center: The Child, First and Always”; Doug Nielsen, e-mail message to authors, April 2, 2007.

45 “Primary Children’s Medical Center: The Child, First and Always.”

46 Sherman Coleman to Barbara Mandleco, Carma Miller, August 2, 2002; Helen Trauntvein to Barbara

Idaho State University nursing students receive clinical training and experience at both facilities.

Child care policies and family involvement at both hospitals have changed dramatically over the years. In early years, when children arrived at Shriners, they were placed in quarantine for fourteen days before they could be moved to the open wards. At both hospitals, an ongoing policy is to see that the children be dressed each day in their clothing instead of wearing hospital gowns or pajamas.46 Initially, only limited contact between patients and family members was permitted. Now, family centered care provided at both hospitals encourages family member visiting and offers counseling to help patients and families cope with their child’s illness and hospitalization. Both facilities provide arrangements for parents to spend the night with their child with separate motelstyle rooms at Shriners and, at Primary Children’s, a chair that converts to a bed at the child’s bedside.Both hospitals also encourage sibling visits and consider them an important part of the child’s care plan.

Patient education is important at both hospitals. At Shriners, a separate classroom for patients has been provided since the 1950s and a teacher is on hand to help school-age children and adolescents keep up-to-date in their school work. Patients attend school Monday through Friday regardless of the length of their hospital stay. At Primary Children’s, there is no formal classroom, however, an education specialist helps families coordinate schoolwork with home school districts, arranges for tutoring on an as-needed basis, and helps families work with any special needs children might have when they return to school.

Mandleco and Carma Miller, July 17, 2002; “Hospital waves good luck. Seven jubilant children go home for Yule,” The Salt Lake Tribune, December 1, 1949; Josephson, “Of Such Is The Kingdom of Heaven.”

47 Kevin Martin to Barbara Mandleco, March 6, 2007; “Primary Children’s Medical Center, History and

Shriners Hospital for Children, Intermountain Unit, opened in 1995.

SHRINER’S HOSPITAL

The length of patient stays at both hospitals has decreased dramatically over time. In 1955 the average length of stay at Primary Children’s was fifty-five days while at Shriners in the late 1970s, the average stay was forty-five days. Today,the length of stay at both hospitals is similar—4.5 days at Shriners and 5.4days at Primary Children’s.47

Since their founding, both hospitals have demonstrated a tradition of devoted attention and care to create a welcoming atmosphere for children with illnesses and disability. Both havesuccessfully met challenges inherent in funding ever-increasing numbers of patients needing services, providing services to wide geographic areas, altering care according to treatment advances and changing populations, and designing child-friendly buildings. Such caring is gratefullyacknowledged by generations of children and their parents.

Indeed, both Primary Children’s Medical Center and Shriners Hospital for Children have played an important role in the history and culture of children’s health care, not only in Utah, but in the Intermountain West as well. Early Utah leaders were dedicated to caring for the needs of ill children, and made significant efforts to ensure national trends were studied and then implemented in Utah. Over time, each hospital has remained current with national healthcare trends while not losing focus of their original vision to provide “…health care for children in an atmosphere of love and concern.”48

Statistics;” Laura Winder to Carma Miller, July 14, 2005; “Salt Lake Shriners fest marks hospital day,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 6, 1977.

48 Primary Children’s Medical Center, “Mission and Commitment to Charity Care,” http://intermountainhealthcare.org/xp/public/primary/aboutus/mission.xml (accessed March 5, 2007).

Seeing Is Believing: The Odyssey of the Pectol Shields

BY ROBERT S. MCPHERSON AND JOHN FAHEY

Sparks rose from the piñon and juniper fire into the black night sky. Shadows danced on the low alcove’s walls,flames flickeredwith wind currents. Nine figures crowded beneath or stood outside a low overhanging ledge, as somebent forwarddigging and peering into a hole inthe sandy bottomed cave. There was nothing to distinguish this particular site, a mere four feet by six feet, from any other of the countless crevices and rock niches surrounding the little town of Torrey and what would later become Capitol Reef National Park. Supervising the excavation was Ephraim Portman Pectol, a Latter-day Saint(LDS) bishop, entrepreneur, and promoter of Wayne County. His wife, Dorothy,three daughters,

Ephraim Pectol in his museum in Torrey. This collection of artifacts has been loaned to several organizations over the years and now resides in the College of Eastern Utah Museum in Price.

Robert S. McPherson teaches at the College of Eastern Utah—San Juan Campus and is a member of the Board of State History. John Fahey is a graduate of the College of Eastern Utah—San Juan Campus and holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Brigham Young University.

COURTESY OF NEAL BUSK

their son-in-law, Claude Holt, and three other men assisted with what everyone anticipated to be a Native American burial of some type. Earlier that day, Ephraim and Dorothy had discovered a cedar bark covering eighteen inches beneath the sandy floor of the cave. They decided to let other family membersshare the thrill of discovery, returning with them and others in the evening for an enjoyable outing.Growing anticipation accompanied the unveiling, Ephraim hoping to add something significant tohisburgeoning collection of Indian artifacts on display athis home.

It was August16, 1926, twenty years after Congress passed the American Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect archaeological sites from collectors and vandals. In southern Utah, however, professional archaeologists as well as avocational pot huntersburrowed into ruins, burials, and any other site that might hold objects left behind by prehistoric Indians. Today, many of the efforts of even the “trained, professional” archaeologists of this time would be classified more as looting than scientific excavation.Collecting was everyone’s intent. While large Ancestral Puebloan (Anasazi) ruins like Mesa Verde (Colorado) and Chaco Canyon (New Mexico) had been under the spade and trowel of the Wetherill family of Mancos, Colorado, at the turn of the century, what seemed to be endless smaller sites drew less attention and wereeasily accessible to local people. In south-central Utah where Pectol lived, the highly developed Anasazi material culture gave way to the less dramatic Fremont remains.Still, there were objects to be had and no telling what might be unearthed during a dig of discovery.

Scraping away more dirt and removingafour inch, cedar bark covering Ephraim uncovered a circular piece of hide approximately thirty-six inches in diameter. Expecting to find a body with a few primitive tools, his eyes must have bulged when he beheld three buffalo hide shields painted in dazzling multicolored geometric patterns. Lifting the objects out of the ground and into the flickering firelight, he …unearthed three of the most wonderful shields ever seen by man. As we raised the front shield the design on two shields came to view. For the space of what seemed two or three minutes, no one seemed to breathe; we were so astonished. We felt we were in the presence of the one who had buried the shields. And these words came to me while in this condition: “Nephites and Gadianton Robbers.”1

Beneath the last objectlay a cone of earth that maintained the convex shape of the tanned leather shields with their arm and neck carrying straps; next was a bottom layer of cedar bark to guard against moisture.

What Pectol really unearthed that evening was the beginning of a controversy that remains to this day.Ephraim Pectol, very much a man of

1 Ephraim Pectol, “The Shields,” unpublished manuscript, in possession of family members, p. 1; See also Frank Beckwith, “The High Priest’s Vestments,” Improvement Era (September 1927): 1030 . The Nephites were people in the Book of Mormon whose religious history spanned from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. The Gadianton Robbers opposed the Nephites through their “secret combinations,” fighting and stealing from the Nephites.

his time, filtered what he saw through what he believed. His initial response to what he saw as Nephites and Gadianton Robbers was totally in keeping with his experienceas an LDS bishopfor sixteen years,steeped in the teachings of the Book of Mormon. 2 Three transoceanic crossings of Israelites before the time of Christ, the rise and fall of theNephite and Lamanite civilizations, the belief that their descendants were directly connected with today’s Native Americans, and all of the religious teachings recorded before the fall of their society, furnished dramatic fare for interpreting archaeological remains. Mormons living in southern Utah did not hesitate to connect ancient Indian artifacts and sites with these events. Even the discovery of the shields took on religious tones. Dorothy, guided by the Spirit, had directed her husband, who had not received as strong an impressionas to where to dig. “You must dig into this and you will find something.”3 And he did.

Soon others added their interpretation to what was discovered that August night. A local newspaper, The Richfield Reaper,declared the shields “an archaeological discovery of great value to science and hardly measurable in monetary valuation.”The biggest question for the writers at the Reaper was interpreting the “quite elaborate designs . . . visible on the shields, undoubtedly pictographs which have not yet been deciphered but quite evidently they tell some kind of a history or legend.”4 Archaeologist Andrew Kerr from the University of Utah, cited in the article, agreed that it was, “one of the most valuable finds recently made,” but stood clear of any interpretation.

Ephraim Pectol, however, was quite sure what the designs meant. He quickly declared the shields to be Nephite and interpreted the designs through LDS doctrine. “Shield No.1[now referred to in the literature as CARE(Capitol Reef) 11] . . . is interpreted as representing creation. This universe is represented in orange color; light has penetrated this universe. And in the distance we see an earth has come into existence. The light has then encircled the universe.”5 Teachings from the book of Genesis and LDS theology emphasize the importance of light during God’s creatingthe earthand during spiritual encounters. Pectol viewed the shields as a chronological recounting of the sacred story of the creation and other early scriptural events.

The second shield (CARE 191)“represents to me the peopling of this earth after it had been created, or the second stage of human religion.” According to the Book of Mormon, a group of people, the Jaredites, came to the Americas around the time of the Tower of Babel. They traveled

2 See Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986).

3 Beckwith, “The High Priest’s Vestments,” 1030.

4 “Archaeological Discovery in Wayne County,” Richfield Reaper, September 2, 1926.

5 Pectol, “The Shields,” 1.

across the ocean in eight barges, represented by as many lines on the shield, to inhabit the new world. “This is a very important event in the history of the Nephites. The Lamanites received knowledge of this event. . . . The thought would naturally come to [them that] the earth had been created and was peopled by the Great Spirit who sent eight barges across the water and peopled the earth.”6

The third shield(CARE 12)went further into LDS beliefs. “Shield No. 3 represents the return stage of human religion and that is what shall become of the people who have peopled this earth that had been created.”7 Pectol saw the span of human life reflected in CARE 12. The center black stripe “represents the beginning of man’s existence upon the earth as being born in sin, represented by the black.”8 Above this stripe is a succession of lines and stripes. “From our birth we have the privilege of entering the kingdom of Satan, which is represented by the lower part of the shield, or we may go into the kingdom of God, represented by the upper half of the shield. The first row of stripes represents the Terrestrial Glory; the second row the Telestial, and the third row the Celestial.”9 Latter-day Saints believe that instead of a dualistic heaven/hell in the afterlife, there are three degrees or kingdoms of glory and a fourth realm of outer darkness to which the dead are assigned as part of a final judgment. Choice during this earth life is a determinant as to where each person goes. There is no predestination and his reference of being “born in sin” is not part of LDS theology. Still, family members joined with their patriarch in asserting, as did daughter Leona, the objects “are associated and a part of our Book of Mormon.”10

The shields were not the only artifacts that the Pectolsviewed through religious eyes.In the general vicinity of his first find, Ephraim later discovered what he called the burial robe. Made from animal skins, this clothing was allegedly discovered close to the grave of an infant. Some people believe Earl Behunin, another local collector from Torrey, actually unearthedthe robes. Neither account gives indication of when they were found. 11 Regardless of who and when Pectol perceived similarities between them and LDS temple robes. On the “skin we call the robe we find marks similar to the marks of the priesthood.”12 There were also “four belts, or strips of buckskin. . .an antelope skin tanned with the hair on, we are pleased to call the apron, and a piece of mountain sheep skin, also tanned with hair on, we represent as the cap.” Because of the LDS garment’s sacred nature to practi-

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 2.

8 Ibid., 3.

9 Ibid.

10

Leona Holt, written description on back of picture of shield cave site, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

11 Lee Ann Kreutzer, “The Pectol/Lee Collection, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah,” Utah Archaeology 7 (1994): 109-10.

12 Pectol, “The Shields,” 2.

tioners, he didnot delve any deeper in comparingthemto the robes he found.

Ephraim Pectol, center, and his daughters Golda and Devona holding the three shields.

As Pectol’s collection of artifacts grew, eventually reaching more than two hundred Indian objects in his museum, he became increasingly fascinated by the archaeological remains around Torrey. He did not hesitate to place his interpretation on those either.Two ruins sprang to life as the remains of fortresses behind which the ancient inhabitants fought their intruding foes. These forts are about one mile apart and are built on prominent points of vantage. The myriad of broken arrow points in and around these forts and the valley strewn with hundreds of graves tells its own gruesome story of how two mighty opposing forces once fought for possession of this land. How perhaps for weeks the battle raged. We picture women and children under cover of darkness carrying food and water to the entrenched braves, and another force of skilled workmen at the ammunition factory discovered by Dr. A.A. Kerr and myself. . .about three miles west of the battleground, with another force of runners hurrying the manufactured arrows to the battle front. At last the entrenched army seeing defeat at hand demolished everything of value to the foe, and under cover of darkness retreated to the southwest carrying with them whatever belongings remained, and bidding “goodbye” as they passed to their homes nestled among the cliffs. Dawn finds the enemy in hot pursuit.13

Pectol expressed a deeply poetic sentiment that connected him as much to his own religion as it did the early inhabitants of southern Utah.

A year after the discovery of the shields, the Improvement Era, a magazine published by the LDS church, printed an article entitled “The High Priest’s Vestments: Used by the Ancient Cliff Dwellers of Wayne County Centuries Ago—Breathings of the Distant Past.” 14 Author Frank Beckwith interviewed the Pectols and adopted their stance that the shields proved the

13 Ephraim Pectol, “Wayne County Man Writes of New Wonders,” Richfield Reaper, October 14, 1926.

14 Frank Beckwith, “The High Priest’s Vestments,” Improvement Era,September 1927, 1029-37.

COURTESY OF NEAL BUSK

spirituality and dignity of early Native Americans and implied a connection with Hebrew tradition. Relating how the shields were first discovered, Beckwith described the“three great circular pieces, symbolic [as] vestments of the High Priest of that land in a time of long ago.”15 One can assume that by this point, the clothing and shields were linked in an interpretation that connected the two as visual metaphors of things associated with temple ceremonies. The author’s flowery monologue pictures a “High Priest, having performed the sacred duties” and a “solemn and sacred march before God,” removing his “sacred vestments” and in the “dead of night when all the air seemed to breathe a secret purpose” hid the objects from the “profane gaze of the unworthy.” 16 Secret and sacred, the objects assumed contemporary religious values.

Beckwith, like Pectol, imaginatively described how these objects were used. He declared that, though the “popular mind” would see the shields as weapons, the thoughtful, the prudent, the student of the lore of an ancient and deeply religious people, will see in them the symbolic insignia of office of the High Priest, and will in fancy,picture him in deerskin cap, fur headdress, and kilts or robes about his loins, buckskin garments clothing his person underneath, and with one of these wonderful objects on his arm. The eldest High Priest, of topmost authority, will carry the four-colored, highly emblematic one; his attendants a lesser one, in accordance with their lesser rank. And each, in ensemble, will personify symbolically the natural forces he represents in his person in the forthcoming religious rites.17

In addition to picturing the shields used by ancient High Priests, Beckwith was eager to add his own interpretation of each.He regarded CARE 191 as the most important one. “It has four symbolic colors, dear to the ancient Indian heart—red, black, green and yellow.” These represented the sun, rain clouds, corn leaves,and matured corn ears respectively. Where Pectol focused on its eight black lines for interpretation, Beckwith found deep significance in the “seven rays of green. . . .The sacred number seven so outcrops among our ancient inhabitants as to cause one to pause with wonder.” This number supported his theory that “the ancient Indian was descended from Judah.” He also saw the shields reflected in various ceremonial dances, such as the Dance of the Ayash Tyocotz, an unspecified Pueblo Indian ceremony.18 Beckwith’s interpretation didnot coincide with Pectol’s, but both were imaginatively graphic in depicting what they believed.

Beckwith’s article brought the shields to the attention of the LDS community and the news continued to spread. They became the subject of a variety of firesides and talks given by Pectol in southern Utah.19 Lecturing in church meetings, town halls,and other public sitesheshared his knowl-

15 Ibid., 1030.

16 Ibid., 1031.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., 1034.

19 “Bishop Pectol is to Lecture in the First Ward Sunday,” Richfield Reaper, December 29, 1927.

edge and interpretation of the artifacts across Utah, with word spreading to California. 20 The Hollywood Stake Mutual Improvement Association (M.I.A.) printed an article in the Improvement Era explaining that the Nephites had used shields to defend against their enemies. The Pectol Shields,representative of Book of Mormon shields,“have been reproduced in Hollywood Stake and used in presenting the M.I.A. slogan. . . the suggestion being given that a shield in the form of our M.I.A. slogan would be probably just as efficacious and desirable today as in the time of the Nephites in protecting the more vital parts of the body.”21

A constant proponent of Wayne County, Pectol spread information about the Capitol Reef area’s prehistoric treasures. He showed the Noel Morss archaeological expedition a few Fremont sites around Torrey in 1928 and 1929. Morss was the first archaeologist to designate the Fremont Indians as a distinct culture. Pectol and Morss revisited the rock shelter where the shields had been discovered, hoping to find more objects to provide contextual clues to the shields but found nothing. Morss recognized that the shields were anomalous in the archaeological record and in his report on the Fremont River drainagehe expressed,“the opinion that these remarkable shields date from comparatively recent if not historic times. This conclusion is based on their uniqueness among objects of ancient origin, on their resemblance to modern Athabascan shields. . . . The shields, while

20 Neal Busk, interview with author, October 11, 2007.

21 “Hollywood Stake Slogan Presentation,” Improvement Era, December 1932, n.p.

Ephraim and Dorothy Pectol displaying the three shields at the rock shelter site where they were discovered in 1926.

modern from the point of view of the Fremont culture, may still be old from a historical standpoint.”22

In addition to archaeologists, other people visited Torrey to see the shields, which Pectol shellacked for protectionas he did with many of his other artifacts.23 In August 1929, Edward Southwick visited the museum and recorded Pectol’s account of finding the shields and vestments. He took picturesof the objects but did not show them until Elder George F. Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave permission.24 The holdings in the museum drew others to Wayne Wonderland, a new name for the area now known as Capitol Reef and environs. Charles Kelly, writer, researcher, and adventurer, initially came to Torrey to visit Pectol’s museum. In 1943,he became the first custodian of Capitol Reef National Park. 25 The artifacts were also highly revered among Pectol’s family members. His grandson, Neal Busk, remembers playing a Fremont flute in the room above hisgeneral merchandise store, something that would surely make an archaeologist shudder.26

When asked where he found the shields, Pectol had Joe Covington, his grandson,lead the inquirers to the rock shelter by a circuitous route, coming and going, making it difficult to relocate. Covington, with clear conscience, took the people to the spotdesignated by Pectol, who had intentionally misinformed him. The discoverer regarded the site sensitive and sacred enough to keep the real site hidden from all except his closest kin. Covington was surprised years later when a family member led him to the real spot.27

Ephraim Pectol continued his life of accomplishment. He became noted as an avid booster of Wayne County and worked to bring federal protection to parts of it, as well as services such as telephones, roads,and an airport. Along with Joseph Hickman, he was one of the founding fathers of Capitol Reef National Monument, which was established by presidential proclamation in 1937.28 This major step in preservation reached fruition following his election to the Utah State Legislature in 1933where he used this position as a bully pulpit for the creation of the national park during President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration.29 Yet his most endur-

22 Noel Morss, The Ancient Culture of the Fremont River in Utah: Report on the Explorations under the Claflin-Emerson Fund, 1928-1929 (Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1931):69-70.

23 Busk interview.

24 Elaine Christensen, “ And I Went Home Rejoicing:” The Background, Life, and Posterity of Edward Southwick III (Provo: J. Grant Stephenson, 1971): 122-25.

25 Bradford J. Frye, From Barrier to Crossroads: An Administrative History of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah: Volume 1 (Denver: National Park Service, 1998): 69-71.

26 Busk interview.

27 Ibid.

28 Frye, From Barrier to Crossroad, 133-44

29 Charles Kelly,“Biographical Sketch of Ephraim Portman Pectol,” unpublished manuscript, Capitol Reef National Park Archives, 3-5.

ing fame is tied to the shields he uncovered that August night.30

As the federal government became increasingly interested in the region that soon became a national tourist attraction, it also became concerned withallegations of stolen Indian artifacts held by citizens of Wayne County. The federal government sent G.G. Frazier to Torrey in September 1932 to investigate these reports. He found littleevidence of illegal collection, except for Pectol and Charles W. Lee. Both ran informal private museums displaying their holdings As the locals “knew nothing of the location of the lands from which they [Pectol and Lee’s artifacts] were gathered,” Frazier relied on testimony from the two mento determine if the objects had been taken from public property.31 Pectol had found the shields a few miles east of Torrey on lands now managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)not, as is commonly thought, within what is now Capitol Reef National Park.32

Frazier reported that Pectol was a “well educated man” who believed that “he has connected the American Indians with the South Sea Islanders [and] also that he can prove the history of the Indian as interpreted from the shields is the same as described in the ‘Book of Mormon.’” In advanced old age, Lee was “apparently very childish. . . his sole income is derived from a ten cent admission charge to view the collection.” Frazier confiscated the artifacts the men had found on public lands but decided, “It is my belief that it would be impossible to enforce the Antiquities Act of 1906 one hundred percent.” He recommended that “no action be taken and the relics remain in their custody until it is decided whether or not a national park will be declared in Wayne County, Utah.”33

The artifacts remained in the museums run by Pectol and Lee until they apparently loaned their combined collection, including the artifacts to be confiscated by Frazier, to the LDS Church’s Bureau of Information and Temple Square Mission in Salt Lake City. This occurred sometime before 1939. The Temple Square Mission ran the museum for the church as part of its efforts in proselyting and so the shields,robes, and other Pectol artifacts were displayed.34

Members of the LDS church found the “High Priest’s Vestments” even more fascinating than the shields. Their interest went beyond simple historical curiosity to a spiritual acceptance of the robes. President John H. Taylor of the Temple Square Mission wrote Bishop Pectol in September 1941 because a Brother Brown wanted to take

30 Busk interview.

31 Shane A. Baker, “In Search of Relics: The History of the Pectol-Lee Collection from Wayne County,” in Relics Revisited: New Perspectives on an Early Twentieth-Century Collection (Provo: Museum of Peoples and Cultures, 2002): 36-37.

32 Busk interview

33 G.G. Frazier to Commissioner General Land Office, Washington, D.C., December 9, 1932, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

…some pictures of your materiel which you have in our case. He particularly wanted to take a picture of the garment, indicating where the marks are. I suggested that he write to you and also suggested that I would speak to the brethren. They felt that it would not be just the best thing to do to permit pictures to be taken of the garment and exhibit [them], even if done so under the good auspices of Brother Brown. . . . I am sure you see the wisdom of this, because of the different attitudes that many people would take in regard to it. In addition, it would only emphasize the marks, etc. on the regular garment.35

Taylor thought there would be no harm in Brown taking pictures of the shields. If this skin clothing were in fact sacred replicas of LDS temple clothing, it is surprising thechurch allowed them to be on public display.

Other people saw connections between Masonic ritual, LDS temple ceremonies,and the Indian robes as proof of the validity of LDS doctrine. Pectol opened the discussion when he wrote that “the marks are in the robe. . . if this is truly intended for the purpose it suggests, then the shields I have represent the remainder of the Temple ordinances.” In 1947 Elmer McGavin made the connection to Masonry while answering a question about the temple ceremony and its connection to Masonic rites. The robes were “undeniable evidence” that the Mormons had not received their temple practices from the Masons. “These skins have been examined by hundreds of people. . . . Their genuineness and antiquity cannot be denied. The marks are as distinct and visible as emblems on a Mason’s badge or watch fob; yet these skins were certainly marked before 1842, when the Mormons were admitted into Masonry.”36 McGavin next told of a skeptical friend who saw the robes thenproclaimed, “This was the most valuable evidence ever produced in defense of the Mormon religion.”37

Others were not so convinced. Wallace Stegner cast a suspicious glance at the robes.

The find itself, a deerskin marked with the mystic temple symbols of the Church, is reported to be locked in a strong box in the Church offices in Salt Lake. . . . The Church has not seen fit to display it in the Church Museum in Temple Square, [so] it must be either very sacred or very dangerous. One old gentleman who saw it before it was sent to Salt Lake remarked that maybe the temple symbols were on it, if you looked right, but if you looked just the regular way it looked as if the mice had chewed it.”38

While Stegner is correct in asserting that the church thought the robes very sacred, why he thought the robes were locked away is a mystery. They were publicly displayed at Temple Square from 1939 to 1964 then moved to Capitol Reef National Park.39 The “High Priest’s Vestments” remain with Pectol family members.

Archaeologists took up their own professional dialogue, removing the

34 Kreutzer, “The Pectol/Lee Collection,” 104-105.

35 John H. Taylor to Ephraim P. Pectol, September 4, 1941, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

36 E. Cecil McGavin, “Mormonism” and Masonry (Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1947), 80.

37 Ibid.,81.

38 Wallace Stegner, Mormon Country (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1942): 157-58.

39 Kreutzer, “The Pectol/Lee Collection,” 111.

discussion from a religious basis to scientifically measurable description. However, once the descriptive analysis ended and interpretation began, there werevarying thoughts amongst the archaeologists. A brief review of some of the notable participants provides a glimpse of differing theories. As previously noted, Morss thought the shieldswere not made by members of the Fremont Culture, but were most likely fashioned during historic times. Carling Malouf, writing for American Antiquity in 1944,included the shields in a list of Utah’s archaeological “finds which appear entirely out of place.”40 He thought that the shields “may not have as great of antiquity as has been claimed” and might be from a post-Puebloan period. Hannah Marie Wormington countered this in her AReappraisal of the Fremont Culture (1955). Her argument centered on the fact that since the Fremont Indians had many pictographs of large shields, “It seems highly probable. . . that these shields are also of Fremont origin.”41 In 1966, C. Melvin Aikens proposed a possible Plains Indian origin for the Fremont. He pictured them originating in the northwestern Plains, migrating to southern Utah,and embracing the already existing Puebloan cultures. Aikens noted that such an explanation “accounts for. . . northwestern Plains-type shield pictographs. . . [and] the Pectol Shields” along with other apparent anomalies in the Fremont Culture.42

While the archaeologistsbantered back and forth, two of the shields werereturned from Temple Square to Wayne County. Charles Kelly, now Superintendent at Capitol Reef National Park, felt that all of Pectol’s “artifacts are from the Basketmaker II period of the Fremont River culture,”and should be housed in the area from whence they came.43 The Bureau of Information on Temple Square delayed releasing the artifacts until the question of ownership was decided. Pectol insisted that some of Lee’s artifacts had been sold or traded to Pectol, but the paperwork was incomplete, so Lee’s family disputed the claim. Additionally, the federal government demanded that the church give up the artifacts that had been collected on BLM land. By 1951, the Pectol and Lee families agreed to display the materials not claimed by the federal government in Wayne County. The Temple Square Museum was further convinced by letters from Pectol that made it clear that the artifacts were only loaned temporarily to the church. The Pectol and Lee families then loaned the National Park Service all of Pectol’s and Lee’s artifacts. The Park Service moved most of the artifacts back to Wayne County in 1953.44

40 Carling Malouf, “Thoughts on Utah Archaeology,” American Antiquity 9(January 1944): 327.

41 H.M. Wormington, A Reappraisal of the Fremont Culture (Denver: Denver Museum of Natural History, 1955): 157.

42 C. Melvin Aiken, Fremont-Promontory-Plains Relationships: Including a Report of Excavations at the Injun Creek and Bear River Number 1 Sites, Northern Utah, University of Utah Anthropology Papers no. 82 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1966): 11.

43 Charles Kelly, Monthly Narrative Report for December, 1953, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

44 Baker, “In Search of Relics,” 38-42.

One shield and two pieces of the High Priest’s Vestments remained in Salt Lake City at the request of Elder Richard L. Evans of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He felt that the artifacts should stay at the museum so they could be seen by the “million or more visitors a year” who went through Temple Square 45 The two shields and most of Pectol’s artifacts remained in Torrey, instead of Capitol ReefPark because it lacked facilities to house them. Instead, they were loaned to the owners of Pectol’s old store/museum, Bernard Tracy and Arthur “Doc”Inglesby, whoinvested five hundred dollars in cases for the shields and other artifacts. By1957, these men requested the objects be removed in preparation for a new restaurant and hotel being added to the store.46 The National Park Service relocated thepieces temporarily to a storage facility until1961 when they were sent to Capitol Reef Park. The artifacts loaned to the church were soon returned as well and the Park opened a new visitors’center in 1965. Most of the Pectol-Lee collection was then displayed or housed at the Park, the place whereEphraim Pectol had always hoped they would reside.47

Placing the shields atthe Capitol Reef Park’s visitor center did not quiet the debate over origin; the discussion actually increased. In 1967 archaeologist Gilbert R. Wenger expressedconcern that their presence in the park might misinform the public by implying a Fremont origin.

We do not feel that these fine specimens should be eliminated [from theexhibit]. . . . Even if we eliminate specific reference that the shields are of Fremont origin their association with specimens of the Fremont Culture would infer as much. Preferably, we would rather take a straightforward approach and state in the label something to the effect that ”Although these shields were recovered in caves where Fremont items have been found, recent scientific tests suggest they may not be quite as old as the other Fremont materials. Continuing archaeological studies may provide the final answer.”48 Thecurator at the park took Wenger’s advice,labelingthe shields accordingly.

A year later, the National Park Service put the issue of Fremont origin to rest when it received its first set of radiocarbon dates from UCLA. A small piece from the third shield (CARE12) dated between 1650 and 1750 AD.49 The Fremont culture is generally accepted as flourishing from 70 to 1250 AD.50 In the 1990s, the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research obtained a second set of radiocarbon dates. The range was much wider and earlier, between 1420 and 1640 AD, but still too late for a Fremont origin.51

45 Richard L. Evans to Conrad Le Wirth, May 8, 1953, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

46 Paul R. Franke to Regional Director, Region Three, August 16, 1957, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

47 Baker, “In Search of Relics,” 42-44.

48 Gilbert R. Wenger to Regional Director, Southwest, January 18, 1967, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

49 Rainer Berger and W. F. Libby, “UCLA Radiocarbon Dates VII,” Radiocarbon 10 (May 1968)149-60.

50 David B. Madsen, Exploring the Fremont (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1989): 8-13.

51 Lawrence Loendorf, “The Pectol Shields: A Repatriation Study,” unpublished manuscript, 2001, Capitol Reef National Park Archives, 7-9.

For forty-six years, the shields rested comfortably in their display case at Capitol Reef National Park, receiving an occasional mention in archaeological journals. Then in 1998, enter for the first time, the Native American view. Representatives from Zuni Pueblo visited Capitol Reef and saw some small hide-wrapped bundles containing bone which they consideredto be sensitive grave objects on display. At their request the items were removed. While the relatively new Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, was not cited for removal of the items, the spirit of the law was evident. 52 Under this law the federal government recognized the rights of Indian people to their ancestors’ cultural items such as funerary, sacred, and other cultural objects as well as human remains. The government required every museum and federal agency to inventory and notify Native American tribes of any objects that met these criteria. The artifacts were to be repatriated “expeditiously” to a requesting tribe after itdemonstrated cultural affiliation to the artifact. The ruling criteria for this determination were to provide a “preponderance of the evidence based upon geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folkloric, oral tradition, historical, or relevant information or expert opinion.”53

The High Priest Vestments exhibited in this photograph created an even greater stir than the shields among LDS members who linked them to the Book of Mormon and contemporary temple ceremonies.

Rather than have the Pectol-Lee collection broken up by repatriation, the Pectol and Lee families asked that the artifacts which had been loaned to the Park Service be returned to them. Two shields stayed on display at the Capitol Reef Park and the other remained at the Park Service’s Western

52 Lee Kreutzer to Neal Busk, December 11, 1998, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

53 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act as amended, Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.,November 16, 1990. www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf (accessed May 20, 2008.)

Area Conservation Center in Tucson. In 1996 the Park Service returned the remainder of the collection, containing over two hundred artifacts,to thePectol family. 54 They remained in private hands until the family negotiated an agreement with Brigham Young University’s Museum of Peoples and Cultures to accept them for temporary display. A family member described the day the artifacts left his house as “one of the happiest days of my life,” as he no longer had to worry about their safety.55

Following the run of the exhibit, the Pectol-Lee collection went to the College of Eastern Utah in Price, where it is currently located.

In 1998,the federal government required all National Parks to remove NAGPRA items from display. The two remaining shields joined the third shield in the National Park Service’s Western Archaeological and Conservation Center in Tucson.56 They now became subject to repatriation. The Navajo Nation was the first to submit a claim. By2002 Uintah Utes of northern Utah, the Paiute Tribe of Utah,and the Kaibab Band of Paiutes had also entered a joint repatriation request, as had the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes in Colorado.The primary argument offered by all claimants, except the Navajo, was rooted in cultural affiliation. The lands where the shields surfaced were traditionally those of the Paiute and Ute people. The Navajos provided a far more detailed explanation of origin and use of the shields.

In an effort to maintain impartialitywhile assigningownership, the government hired four scholars—Lawrence Loendorf, Barton A. Wright, Benson L. Lanford,and Polly Schaafsma—to prepare independent studies of the shields. Based on physical evidence that included materials used in construction and decoration, prehistoric rock art, historic tribal locations, cultural practices, and other considerations, each person was to either suggest which tribe they thought made the shields or that affiliation could not be reasonably established. There was no definitive agreement. Loendorf compared the shields to rock art from the time period of the shields’ creation and “tentatively” concluded that two of them were made by Athabascan speakers, meaning Navajo or Apache. The other shield, CARE 191, he believed came from a Puebloan group, possibly Jemez who were allied with the Navajo during the time the shields were made. This explained how the Navajos obtained it.57

Barton Wright compared the Pectol shields to early historic accounts and specimens of Navajo shields. Using this information, he believed the Navajo shields of the time the Pectol shields were made usually had hair on them, and frequently an animal design. He declared “in my estimation the Navajo shields do not bear any resemblance to the Pectol Shields. . . . The

54 Baker, “In Search of Relics,” 44-45.

55 Busk interview.

56 Baker, “In Search of Relics,” 45.

57 Loendorf, “The Pectol Shields,” 1-2.

shields that are closest in form resemble the Pueblo type more than the Pectol ones.”58 Benson L. Lanford took a broad view of southern Utah material culture. He looked particularly at painted leather objects from a wide array of cultures and came to the conclusion that the shields were Apache in origin.59

Loendorf, Wright,and Lanford submitted their studies in 2001, while rock art specialist Polly Schaafsma submitted her findings a year later, responding to their methodology. She argued a Ute origin, declaring the other studies flawed and that the shields’discovery on Ute lands identified the real owner. Schaafsma specifically attacked the validity of Navajo oral tradition by saying that Pectol’s interpretation “could become the ‘basis’ for yet another claim, on equal footing with any other story.”60

What Schaafsma was reacting against was another form of historical record which lies directly at odds with the archaeological emphasis placed on physical, measurable objects.The Navajo Tribe requested John Holiday, a Navajo medicine man and prime witness, and three other tribal members, to testify on behalf of its claim.61 Born in Monument Valley, Utah,around 1919, Holiday grew up in the traditional environment that eventually led to his becoming a Blessingway singer and a repository of cultural and historical knowledge.62 On March 8, 2001, the Navajo contingent met with National Park Service officialsat the Western Archaeological Conservation Center. Lee Kreutzer, Cultural Resources Program Manager at Capitol Reef National Park and lead investigator for the repatriation claims, held a second meeting with Holiday and two men from the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD) in Monument Valley on May 7, 2002.63 He not only named the individuals who made the shields, told how they got to the burial site, but also interpreted the meaning of the designs and the powers they held. To fully understand the complexity of Navajo thought associated with his explanation is beyond the scope of this article. What follows is a brief summary.

58 Barton A. Wright, “Professional Evaluation of Cultural Affiliation of Three Buffalo Hide Shields from Capitol Reef National Park, Utah,” unpublished manuscript, 2001, pp. 1-2, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

59 Benson L. Lanford, “Tribal Attribution of the Pectol Shields, Capitol Reef National Park, Utah,” unpublished manuscript, 2001, p. 43, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

60 Polly Schaafsma, “The Pectol Shields: A Cultural Evaluation,” unpublished manuscript, 2002, pp. 3537. Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

61 Lee Ann Kreutzer, “Summary of Historical Research and Evaluation of the Repatriation Request Submitted by the Navajo Nation for Capitol Reef Shields,” unpublished manuscript, July 1, 2002, 3. Capitol Reef National Park Archives

62 See John Holiday and Robert S. McPherson, A Navajo Legacy, The Life and Teachings of John Holiday (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005). Use of the term “medicine man” is sometimes criticized. Some scholars prefer the terms chanter, healer, singer, medicine person, etc. We have chosen to use medicine man because it is recognizable by all and is how we hear Navajo people speaking English, refer to this type of person.

63 John Holiday,Clarification Interview with Lee Ann Kreutzer, May 7, 2002, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

John Holiday has knowledge of family members who lived in the vicinity of the No Name (Henry) Mountains, White Face (Boulder) Mountain, and the area southeast of Richfield along the Fremont River. This was prior to the 1860s and the period known to the Navajo as the “Fearing Time”and the “Long Walk,”when many were forced into exile at Fort Sumner, New Mexico. This region is not traditionally viewed as Navajobut rather Ute territory. The Navajos, following a nomadic, herding, hunting, and gathering lifestyle at this time were in constant search of verdant lands. Holiday’s grandmother, Woman with Four Horns (named after the type of goats she raised), herded sheep in this area and was able to name other Navajo families living closeby.64

According to Holiday, the powers of the shields were created spiritually at the beginning of the earth, as are medicine bundles used for healing and protection. The Holy Beings are the ones who control their powers and assisted the first person who made the physical shields in question.These objects are both a representation of nature’s invisible powersas well as a living entity that can control and use those powers on the Navajo’s behalf. These shields had been in the possession of eight generations of medicine men before the Fort Sumner experience. 65 Objects of this nature are viewed as alive and so must be “fed” or renewed with songs, prayers, and pollen or sacred stone (ntł’iz) offerings. Transmission of the shields, as with medicine bundles (jish),is made from one medicine man to another, not within a single family.

Prior to the time of the Long Walk,a series of medicine men, some of whom were from the Capitol Reef area, held the responsibility to renew and safeguard the protective shields. Many Goats with White Hair created the shields, making them on the Kaibab Mountains in a thick pine forest with a circular clearing.66 Custody of the shields went to Man Who Keeps His Mouth Open, then Yellow Forehead, Tall Skinny Man, Man Who Wants

64 See Holiday and McPherson, A Navajo Legacy, 76-177, 189-92.

65 Interview with John Holiday and Lee Kreutzer, March 8, 2001, transcript in possession of authors.

66 Holiday Clarification Interview.

John Holiday, Blessingway singer (medicine man), played a crucial role during the repatriation process and in having the shields restored to the Navajo Nation in 2003.

PHOTO BY STAN BYRD

to Sit Down, Side Person, Man Who Plays with the Wooden Cards, Man with Metal Teeth, and finally to Ropey and Small Bitter Water.67 The shields had different names: Earth Protective Shield, Heaven’s Protective Shield, Mountain Protective Shield, and Water’s Protective Shield. 68 Theywere decoratedwith the likeness of those invisible protective powers held by the natural entity named. For example, the Earth, a living being, has its own shieldof protection and so by copying its elements, the Navajo can likewise draw upon its protective powers.

To renew the powers held within the shields, the medicine men had to obtain “shake offs” or dust that transmitted the power from an object or animal that represents the entire object. A few examples clarify this point:

It [shield/medicine bundle] also acted like a protective shield that medicine men used to enter a cave and shake the sacred dust off a bear’s back. They would then take it to Black Rock and shake the sacred dust, then go to Navajo Blanket [syncline east of Mexican Hat, Utah], said to be a snake, and shake off the sacred dust from its back. The collection of this sacred dust is called Sacred to Carry Around, and all medicine men have it with them. They then took the shield to Green Cattail Flat, where they shook the dust off the lightning’s back. This lightning was a bird the size of a mourning dove and very bluish in color.69

The powers of the shields,once renewed, could not be penetratedby bullets and arrows, or evil and witchcraft. They provided protection against all things that can harm a person or a group under its power.

When the U.S. military and its Indian and New Mexican auxiliaries warred against the Navajos to the south, those living near the Henry Mountains remained safe and escaped exile to Fort Sumner.

TheNavajo were put in the ‘heart’of the shields and were safe. Theywere not captured. They remained hidden in the Henry Mountains and surrounding area where these sacred shields were and so were never caught. . . . They did not go to Fort Sumner because they lived closer to the sacred shields. It is said that these shields were often taken to other parts of our land, throughout the Navajo communities, just as the sacred mountain soil(medicine bundle—jish) is carried around.70

During this time, however, as the people evaded detection, Ropey and Little Bitter Water Man had control of the shields and wanted to prevent their capture. Little Bitter Water Man hid them and left the area. He became sick and died withouttelling anyone where the shields were

67 Holiday and McPherson, A Navajo Legacy , 189; Kreutzer and Holiday interview; Holiday Clarification Interview.

68 The number of shields and their relation to a medicine bundle also mentioned by John Holiday becomes somewhat confused in the various oral interviews conducted at different times. In some instances, one gets the impression that there were four separate shields and one got lost; in another instance, there is the impression that all four of the powers were concentrated in one shield that became lost; in Holiday’s interpretation during the National Park Service meeting in Tucson, all three of the shields were explained according to traditional Navajo beliefs, the powers of which were found in the three shields. Holiday indicated that the four powers were paired—Earth with Heavens (Sky) and Mountains with Water.

69 Holiday and McPherson, A Navajo Legacy, 191.

70 Holiday and Kreutzer, Interview.

hidden, causing them to be“misplaced.”71 The powers were neglected, their influence waned, and the invasion of Navajo lands and capture of the people resulted in the four-year imprisonment of over eight thousand Navajos. They had lost their protection.With the rediscovery of the shields, an opportunity to renew these powers became possible.

Based on an evaluation of all claims submitted by various bands and tribes, Kreutzer recommended that the shields be returned to the Navajo Nation. Capitol Reef Superintendent Albert Hendricks approved the transfer on August1, 2003. 72 John Holiday and Marklyn Chee of the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, drove to Tucson,retrieved the shields,and brought them to Window Rock on August7. Chee felt it an emotional journey. He drove while Holiday sang and prayed over the shields. “The songs were to revive them and tell them ‘You’re home.’. . .It felt like a good thing to bring them back.”73

Because they are sacred objects they are not on displayandcontinue to be subject to controversy. Debora Threedy, then serving as Associate Dean of the University of Utah’s College of Law, felt that the repatriation process demonstrated a major flaw in NAGPRA. She told the Deseret News that archaeologists are not necessarily prepared to make a legal determination. In the case of the Pectol Shields, “From a scientific point of view, the best you can say about those shields is that their provenance is not known.”74 Other objections to the repatriation focused on the Navajo refusal to display the shields or allow them to be studied by non-Navajo archaeologists. This refusal particularly rankles when some archaeologists feel the provenance is unclear. Chee,interviewed for the same articlereiterated that the shields “are kept in the museumand are not on display.I repeat, not on display. . . . They are for ceremonial purposes and they have been reintroduced into ceremonial use.”75

Others, as close as Pectol’s grandchildren,have also entered the fray. In a forum held at Brigham Young University on February7, 2004, grandson Neal Busk declared “to understand the Pectol collection, one must understand E.P. Pectol.” The corollary was that “one cannot understand how the Pectol family feels about the Pectol collection without also understanding him.” He went on to say that while the Navajos may have the best claim, the “best” claim is not necessarily a “sufficient” claim. “It was, and still is, simply that in our judgment, the Navajo claim was not sufficient with far too much credence given to oral tradition with little or no design or historical evidence to back up the oral tradition claim.” He felt that,“The shields could have gone and should have gone to, say, the Utah Museum of

71 Holiday Clarification Interview.

72 Repatriation Agreement, August 1, 2003, Capitol Reef National Park Archives.

73 Andrew Curry, “Tribal Challenges: How the Navajo Nation is Changing the Face of American Archaeology,” Archaeology 58 (September/October 2005): 66.

74 Joe Bauman, “Indian Artifacts Fuel Discontent,” Deseret News, October 10, 2005.

75 Ibid.

Natural History, to be held in common for all tribes if or until a sufficient claim were made as determined by all the Utah tribes. And if a sufficient claim is not possible, should not the shields be ultimately returned to Wayne County where they were found? That would fulfill Ephraim Portman Pectol’s dream and the dream of the Pectol family.” 76

The Navajo position remains firm. In 2005, Andrew Curry of Archaeology magazine asked Robert Begay, a Navajo archaeologist, what he thought of those who viewed John Holiday’s oral history as insufficient proof to warrant repatriation. Begay replied that oral history, under NAGPRA, is as valid as archaeological or scientific evidence. “Strict archaeologists say that according to scientific data our claims aren’t valid. We respect that, but we have our traditions too. At some point you have to compromise, and we try to use the NAGPRA process to our advantage.” 77 Marklyn Chee of NNHPD agreed and asked:“Who’s a better person to teach you what these mean? The people who used them since before written time or scientists whose theories have only been around a while?” Curry, while respecting the right of Native Americans to have input about their ancestor’s remains worried that “Changing the way human remains are studied—in effect, forbidding any study—could fundamentally alter the way archaeology is done in America.”78

The odyssey of the Pectol Shields began that August night eighty-two years ago and has continued ever since. Initially viewedas proof of the Book of Mormon, they have seemed out of place in the Capitol Reef area.

76 Neal Busk, “A Pectol Family Perspective,” Symposium Talk, February 7, 2004, Brigham Young University, in possession of Neal Busk.

77 Curry, “Tribal Challenges,”67.

78 Ibid.

Ephraim Pectol on the porch of his home in Torrey with the three shields and Fremont era baskets.

COURTESY OF NEAL BUSK

The shields and “Nephite burial robes” have been used to prove the validity of LDS temple ceremonies,Native American ceremonies,and Masonic rituals. Archaeologists have used the shields to assert a Northern Plains origin for the Fremont Culture, to refute such claims,and to suggest trade connections between southern Utah and the Plains. They have been viewed as the reason the Navajos were defeated in the 1860s and spent four agonizing years at Fort Sumner. And, until 2003,the shields have been the subject of a Native American repatriation battle.

Underlying the controversy is a fundamental issue. Varying perceptions have applied more “color” than encountered on the physical objects. Even those who pride themselves in the interpretation of factual evidence struggle with finding a definitive answer as to creation and ownership.In the meantime, Navajo medicine men occasionally remove the shields from their containers to renew their powers, feeding them with prayers and songs. Harmony and protection result. Others, not of the same inclination, want an opportunity to study the shields further. Conceivably,this could open the door to lawyers, standing in the wings, ready to apply their perception of who holds proprietary rights to theseobjects. The odyssey could continue.The crux of this controversy hits at the heart of how we write history, “do” archaeology, and honor religious practices—for “seeing isbelieving.”

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation

The Utah Historical Quarterly (ISSN 0042-143X) is published quarterly by the Utah State Historical Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1182. The editor is Philip F. Notarianni and the managing editor is Allan Kent Powell with offices at the same address as the publisher. The magazine is owned by the Utah State Historical Society, and no individual or company owns or holds any bonds, mortgages, or other securities of the Society or its magazine.

The following figures are the average number of copies of each issue during the preceding twelve months: 3,471 copies printed; 8 dealer and counter sales, 3,118 mail subscriptions; 0 other classes mailed; 3,126 total paid circulation; 78 free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier, or other means; 3,204 total distribution; 267 inventory for office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing; total, 3,471.

The following figures are the actual number of copies of the single issue published nearest to filing date: 3,525 copies printed; 3 dealer and counter sales; 2,917 mail subscriptions; 0 other classes mailed; 2,920 total paid circulation; 85 free distribution (including samples) by mail, carrier, or other means; total distribution; 3,005 inventory for office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing; 520 total 3,525.

Seeing Is Believing and Hearing Is Believing: Thoughts on Oral Tradition and the Pectol Shields

By LEE KREUTZER

The cedar interior of the spacious hogan glowed golden, lit up like a paper lantern by late-morning sunlight. Men and women seated themselves on rugs and mattresses along the edges of the room’s sandy floor, embraced by the curved walls of the wood and earthen sanctuary. The faces of these people glowed, too, happy and proud, in anticipation of the ceremony about to begin here. This would be a momentous event for them—and for all Navajos. Three sacred shields, powerful protectors of the Diné people, were about to be welcomed home after an absence of nearly 140 years.

These shields, known as both the Pectol shields and Capitol Reef shields and whose story is told in the previous article by Robert McPherson and John Fahey, were repatriated to the Navajo Nation by the National Park Service in 2003 under the terms of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). I was the park archeologist for Capitol Reef National Park while the NAGPRA process was unfolding. As such, I evaluated all of the various claims, counter-claims, assessments, and objections submitted by tribal and non-Indian parties. I conducted documentary research, consulted with tribes, archeologists, historians, material culture experts, anthropologists, NAGPRA specialists, curators, and federal solicitors, and I made the recommendation to repatriate the shields.

During that process and since repatriation, the Capitol Reef shields have been the target of more interest and spilled ink than they ever were during the entire seventy-odd years they were on public display and available for scientific inquiry.

Much of this controversy centers on the acceptance of oral tradition as evidence in evaluating the NAGPRA repatriation requests. Oral tradition is information that one generation passes to the next by word of mouth. Such tradition can include narratives of past events, genealogies, instructional stories and myths, songs, prayers, and other kinds of knowledge that are integral to a group’s self-identity. NAGPRA lists various kinds of oral information among the lines of evidence that a federal agency must consider when evaluating a repatriation request. Critics fault NAGPRA for this, dismissing orally transmitted knowledge as storytelling, hearsay, allegory, and even purposeful lies.

Lee Kreutzer is an archeologist with the National Park Service’s National Historic Trails office in Salt Lake City. She was park archeologist at Capitol Reef National Park from 1993 to 2003.

The Navajo claim for the three Capitol Reef shields was well publicized and contentious, with most criticism centering on the park’s consideration of Navajo oral tradition in the evaluation process. Interestingly, arguments made by Euro-Americans were qualitatively different from those made by American Indian tribes, even though the central issue was the same: both groups opposed repatriation to the Navajos.

Non-Indians rejected oral tradition altogether and demanded documentary proof of Navajo ownership of the shields (even though the NAGPRA standard is a “preponderance of the evidence”). Some accused the Navajo medicine man of “concocting” his account, designing it carefully around the legal requirements of NAGPRA in order to gain the shields for the tribe’s new museum.1 These critics saw in oral tradition not only the possibility of error, but also a probability of deliberate falsehood. The only admissible, relevant, and valid kinds of evidence are documentary and scientific data, they maintained. Scientific data pertinent to this matter consisted of radiocarbon dates placing the shields’ construction at between AD 1420 and 1640, the period during which Athabaskan peoples (Navajos and Apaches) likely arrived in the American Southwest. As Robert McPherson and John Fahey recount, the opinions of archeological and material culture experts varied widely. Since the dates and archeological analyses neither proved nor ruled out a Navajo origin for the shields, opponents argued that the very absence of documentation disproved the Navajo tradition.

The Navajos, of course, did not have a written language until relatively recently, so they could not provide such documentation themselves. Any such documentation could only have been created by white men and women during the late nineteenth century. Photographic documentation of the shields in Navajo possession would not exist because they would have hidden the shieldsduring nearly the entire era of the development of field photography. Ethnographic records relating to Navajo use of the shields would not exist because the Navajos would have lost the shields long before the first academic anthropologists began systematically studying their culture—and there is little reason to believe that medicine men would have discussed this particular matter with anthropologists, anyway. Therefore, the absence of documentary evidence does not necessarily weigh against the Navajo claim.

Other tribes opposed the Navajo repatriation request and entered their own competing claims for the shields. Unlike non-Indian critics, they did not object to consideration of oral tradition as a line of evidence, demand written or photographic records, or attack the character of the Navajo medicine man. However, some Indian groups were offended when asked to share sensitive cultural knowledge, even knowing that it could potentially support their own claims for the shields. NAGPRA put those groups at a disadvantage because,

1 These kinds of accusations, in addition to the fact that the shields were claimed as sacred objects, are why Navajo Nation officials repeatedly have assured the public that the shields will not be placed on exhibit.

for cultural reasons, they could not talk about their religious practices or even speak the names of deceased persons who may have been associated with the shields, whereas the Navajos freely shared such information.

Inter-tribal relations also loomed large: several competing claimants disputed the purported Navajo presence in the area where Pectol found the artifacts, and suspected that the politically powerful Navajo Nation was using the shields to help build a territorial claim to Ute and Paiute homelands in the Capitol Reef area. Mainly, though, the other claimant tribes simply put forward their own best arguments, which I weighed against the Navajo account. These argumentstended to be non-specific not linked to a particular oral tradition that they could share with the National Park Service. The arguments centered on:1) the group’s spiritual responsibility to a greater power to which, they believed, the shields truly belong, and/or 2) the fact that the shields when discovered were within an area they considered part of their own traditional homelands.

Three of the other claimant tribes, like the Navajos, submitted no documentation in support of their claims, instead preferring face-to-face discussions. Two other tribes, working jointly, mustered what photographic and written descriptive evidence they could in support of their claim. They did so with the assistance of non-tribal professionals, in an effort to meet what they knew were the expectations of federal personnel trying to comply with NAGPRA. Tribal experts themselves, however, preferred oral discussions of spirituality, morality, and culture to make their case.

These patterns raise some interesting questions. Why do Euro-Americans tend to dismiss oral tradition and question the memories of the traditional medicine man? Why do they perceive documents—published ethnography, history, and photographs—as the only meaningful evidence?In addition, why were the challenges mounted by other tribal peoples so qualitatively different from the challenges of Euro-Americans?

The easy answers are unsatisfactory. To point only to racism or the “politics of power” would be a superficial and politicized response to a much deeper, more important sociocultural issue. Why does one cultural group place such value on documentation—what we can see—and mistrust oral information and memory, while another values memory and oral information—what we hold within our own minds and what we can hear—and has little faith in documentation?

Study after study has demonstrated cultural differences in how people use their memories. Try this: think of your earliest memory and figure how old you were when that event or impression occurred. If you are EuroAmerican, chances are you were three to five years old at the time of your earliest memory.2

2 See, Michelle D. Leichtman, Qi Wang, and David B. Pillemer, “Cultural Variations in Interdependence and Autobiographical Memory: Lessons from Korea, China, India, and the United States,” in Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, ed. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 2003), 75.

That kind of early memory is common among members of “Western” societies, those whose cultures are rooted in Greek ways of thinking. However, the earliest memories for members of non-Western cultures tend to occur around the age of six or seven. Sociologists and cognitive psychologists believe the difference is because Western society emphasizes a focus on the individual, the self. We favor autobiographical memory practices, in keeping with our cultural emphasis on individuality, self-expression, personal identity, and autonomy.3 As a result, we tend to be skeptical of non-autobiographical memories: memories of events, not formalized in writing, which the people remembering did not experience.

Many non-Western cultures, including traditional Native American cultures, emphasize the group (village, tribe, extended family) over the individual. Societies that do this emphasize shared (group) identity, interpersonal connectedness, social obligation, conformity, and harmony. 4 Members of such societies tend to create social memories of significance to the group, not the self, and those memories tend to develop later, along with social roles. Non-Western traditionalists attach tremendous significance to memories of stories and events that commemorate and strengthen group identity and cohesion.5 The Navajo medicine man’s memory of the shields saga, the names of the nine medicine men that tended the shields, and the prayers and rituals related to the shields are of this nature.

Clearly, cultural differences in memory are embedded in how we, as social beings, use our minds differently—how we develop, store, retrieve, understand, and communicate information. Why do those differences exist?

Many scholars have argued that Western society has been focused on the individual ever since the Greeks refined their alphabetic writing system and employed it in developing analytic, logico-scientific ways of thinking. Since that time, Western culture increasingly has separated personal knowledge and memory from social knowledge and memory. Our personal memories are relatively simple and center on ourselves. However, demands on our social memory are complex and vast, requiring access to bodies of law, mathematics, science, and technology. We cannot meet these demands with our unaided brains, so we rely on textual and other forms of documentation to store those kinds of information-dense memories. Then,when we want to retrieve that information, we use our eyes: we read, look at, or watch the physical records of our memories. We also tend to rely increasingly on external sources even for simple, short-term memories such as addresses and phone numbers. “Literate” societies often prefer this strategy of managing information.

On the other hand, the biological memory capacities of individual

3 Ibid, 73, Katharine Nelson, “Narrative and Self, Myth and Memory: Emergence of the Cultural Self,” in Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self, 21.

4 Leichtman, Wang, and Pillemer, “Cultural Variations,” 73.

5 James Fentress and Chris Wicham, Social Memory (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1988), 8.

members can meet the social needs of smaller, non-Western traditional societies. These traditional cultures employ many kinds of external visual symbols, such as costumes, masks, totems, design motifs, petroglyphs, and pictographs, as memory aids. In addition to non-alphabetic visual memory aids, traditionalists employ behavioral devices to reinforce and cue their memory: oral repetition and rote memorization, song and prayer, rhythmic music, ritual, dance, and other kinds of performance. They hear and physically experience their memories, and they store, retrieve, and communicate their knowledge in narrative form. “Oral” societies tend to prefer this information management strategy.

Modern-day societies, of course, are neither wholly oral nor exclusively literate; rather, they are a complex blend of both, but with emphasis on one of the two strategies. The Jesuit historian, philosopher, and English professor Walter J. Ong suggests classifying these cultures along a continuum, in terms of how much their original “orality” has persisted alongside their growing literacy.6 Many Native American societies remain predominately oral.

Linguists have identified key structural differences between speech and writing, and these generally reflect distinctions between oral-primary and literate-primary cultures,as well. Cultures that favor the spoken word value interdependency, group identity, conformity, and tradition. Their accounts of the past tend to be formulaic and non-chronological, and to commemorate events of significance to the group. Cultures that favor the written word value independent thought, competition, individualism, and selfidentity. Their accounts of the past tend to be information-dense, logical narrativesthat arestructured by the Western concept of the linear passage of time. These distinctions are much more than simple group preferences, but reflect deep-rooted and significant differences in how cultural groups perceive and make sense of reality.

Many scholars attribute the origin of these differences to the development of alphabetical literacy, which opened up new intellectual possibilities.7 The new ability to write down any idea and go back to it later, study it at leisure, analyze it, critique it, and refine it led to revolutionary developments in abstract thinking. Mathematics and geometry, science, logic, philosophy, and history are some of the intellectual disciplines made possible by writing. These disciplines and processes are highly abstract, favor linear and chronological organization of thought, and emphasize

6 Walter J. Ong, The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegolema for Cultural and Religious History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).

7 For example, Jack Goody and Ian Watt, “The Consequences of Literacy,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (1963): 304-345; Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1964); Jack Goody, The Interface Between the Written and the Oral (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Eric A. Havelock, The Origins of Western Literacy (Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1976); and Merlin Donald, “Human Cognitive Evolution: What We Were, What We Are Becoming,” Social Research 60, no. 1 (1993):143-70.

observation and the sense of vision over listening and the sense of hearing. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, even our use of language has been closely linked to sight and reason. Scientists observe a “phenomenon,” which itself is from the Greek phainomenon, “that which appears or is seen.” When we understand, we “see.” We have insights, we are enlightened, we reflect, we show, we have points of view,and we draw conclusions.

Because of its intellectual heritage, then, Western culture favors sight over sound and values documentation, particularly textual documentation, over oral information. We grant text a higher authority than speech, and we devalue biological memory as a source of knowledge and oral narrative as a means of conveying factual information. For us, seeing is believing

This, then, is why those who argued most strenuously against accepting the Navajo medicine man’s oral traditional information took the position that they did. It is why they, and I, regarded documentary evidence as necessary in deciding the case: we are culturally conditioned to seek visual evidence and put greater confidence in text than in oral information.

Many American Indian tribes, however, have different intellectual practices, and like the Navajos, emphasize face-to-face consultations, oral information, and commemorative, social memory in their claims for the shields. For them, hearing is believing.

Floyd O’Neil, Director Emeritus of the American West Center at the University of Utah, observes:

Now we aretold as historians that oral tradition is suspect. Historians rely on documents. However, if an oral tradition is one generation old, historians will respect it like other documents IF someone has typed it up. So there is something flawed in the discipline of history.8

No competent oral historian would suggest that we consider oral history or oral tradition to constitute an intact, immutable, timeless truth, or that we should accept all uttered word without critical evaluation. Memories erode and evolve, influenced by emotion, suggestion, and the passage of time. When a group or person stands to gain from relaying a false “tradition,” the possibility of deception must be considered. In fact, much of the current body of literature on oral tradition, folklore, and oral history is devoted to ways of systematically measuring the reliability, validity, “compatibility,” and “reasonability” of oral accounts in order to arrive at some judgment of truth. Although the goal is laudable, it seems ironic that we are writing down oral historical and religious narrative and then employing methods derived from Greek logic to objectify, analyze, and evaluate it.

Historians correctly point out that a written account prepared soon after an event occurs does not mutate as it passes from generation to generation,

8

Floyd O’Neil, “Values of Zuni Oral History,” in Zuni and the Courts: A Struggle for Sovereign Land Rights, Ed . . . . E. Richard Hart (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1995), 28.

as oral information can, or lose detail over time, as human memory does. Although our understanding of written information often evolves, the information itself remains stable. However, while stability is desirable, it is not necessarily truth. Written accounts, which after all are derived from memories, are susceptible to many of the same original weaknesses as oral accounts. Emotion, ambition, cultural expectations, and memory failure influence the most conscientiously objective writer. Many documents are written expressly to influence or even to deceive the reader. Writers compose with an audience and a goal in mind—and their ultimate goal typically is to present themselves to peers and posterity in the best possible light. Therefore, as any historian will acknowledge, documentation requires the same level of scrutiny as oral information.

At issue, though, are more than just sight and sound, writing vs. talking. Cultural values, worldviews, and the styles of communications that derive from those values and views are at the heart of the matter.In my own experience with intercultural consultations, I often have puzzled over the misunderstandings and intellectual disconnects that occur even though all the participants are speaking English. Conversation stops abruptly when one party makes what the other considers a non sequitur, and those on one side of the table look blankly at those on the other side until someone ventures a response. Body language is frequently misinterpreted; behavior that is respectful or inoffensive in one culture may be disrespectful and insulting in another. Euro-Americans struggle to make sense of traditional accounts provided by tribal consultants, and consultants grow frustrated by demands for chronological order and historical detail in their accounts. Agreements and consensus quickly unravel when it becomes clear that the parties have different perceptions of the conversation, and each can end up suspecting the other of dishonesty and evasiveness. Walter Ong describes similar interactions between literate-primary instructors and oral-primary students in academic settings.9

Because they are participants in both the larger American society and their traditional tribal societies, many tribal representatives recognize that important differences exist between the communication and thinking styles of those societies. In that regard they are a step ahead of most of us from the dominant culture, who go on living, communicating, and thinking in the Western tradition that we consider to be natural and universal, unaware that there are other legitimate ways to perceive, make sense of, and act in the world. However, even bicultural individuals do not understand the deep-rooted reasons for those differences.

Critics have accused NAGPRA of being flawed of placing Native American religious thought above other kinds of religious thought, and of

9 Ong, “Literacy and Orality in Our Times,” An Ong Reader: Challenges for Further Inquiry, ed. Thomas J. Farrell and Paul A. Soukup (Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton, 2002), 465-78, originally published in ADE Bulletin, Association of Departments of English (September 1978):58.

being too generous in its treatment of tribal claims and too lax in its consideration of science and history. For many years,I was sympathetic to those complaints. After working closely with the law and numerous tribes in the shields matter and reflecting at length on those experiences, however, I have grown to appreciate the wisdom inherent in NAGPRA. Flawed it may be, but not in this respect. The drafters of the law,who insisted that oral tradition, oral history, linguistics, and folklore be considered equally with historical documentation, radiometric dating, archeology, and DNA analysis,were not being politically correct, but insightful. Those who insisted that agencies and museums consult with tribes, not just write them form letters, were not being solicitous, but fair. They recognized that cultural differences in remembering, reasoning, and communicating exist, and that those differences have real impacts on real people.

NAGPRA is intended to give Native Americans a meaningful voice in the treatment and disposition of their ancestral remains, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. The law does not give oral information priority over documentation, but requires only that it receive fair consideration. Many critics accept writings as stand-alone evidence, but regard oral tradition as a hypothesis to be tested against documentation, as mere rumor, or even as entirely irrelevant. These critics, in fact, are advocating the very thing they think they protest: elevating the practices, beliefs, and world view of one culture above those of another.

Neither writing nor speech is intrinsically superior. They are just two different, legitimate forms of communication that can inform and enrich each other.

Seeing is believing and hearing is believing. Historians and archeologists would do well to remember that.

BOOK REVIEWS

Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the Early American West

By Ned Blackhawk. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. xi +372 pp. Cloth, $35.00.)

IN VIOLENCE OVER THE LAND Ned Blackhawk examines the way the immediate and displaced violence of imperial expansion deformed and reformed native societies of the Great Basin. Blackhawk describes how violence spread beyond frontier borders as succeeding native groups bitterly contested with each other for horses, weapons, space, manufactured goods, and the economic wares to ensure alliances with powerful imperial trade partners. He is not the first historian to describe the “rippling” spread of military technology through Indian groups after European contact, nor the violence that accompanied it. However, Blackhawk adds a unique insight by arguing that native history can be better understood by studying the varied adaptations natives made to violence. Imperial expansion, violence, and pain define the history of the American West, and it is important to understand the way Indians responded to that violence by “recalibrating” their societies, adapting new strategies of survival in response to colonial disturbance, and the changing imperial and native balances of power.

Blackhawk focuses the majority of his research on the Spanish borderland where the nexus of conflict, trade, and change occurred longest and most dramatically. Here Spain was expelled, re-conquered, and went through its own violent “recalibrations” adjusting to its Indian environment, while natives on the northern border underwent major cultural transformations, “recalibrating” themselves to the demands of equestrian militarism. These violent disruptions became bloody contests over resources, space, and alliances. Blackhawk demonstrates the tight interweaving of indigenous politics with imperial powers, and the way colonial violence was displaced deep into the interior. The web of “peaceful” trade networks ultimately displaced violence to the interior as slave traffickers harvested non-equestrian bands, and traders, trappers, and horse-raiders traveled interior trails along which they destroyed subsistence resources.

Blackhawk argues that how various bands responded to violence became mechanisms of survival. For example, after years of bloodshed, southern Colorado Utes ultimately adapted and moved toward negotiated trade alliances with New Mexico. Over time these skills led to their becoming “consummate” diplomats and offering military alliances that helped stave off the types of massacres that destroyed the Northwestern Shoshone at Bear River, the Cheyenne at Sand Creek, and decimated the Utah Utes through raiding warfare. These latter groups had adapted to the “violence” of deprivation with the violence of subsistence warfare (raids) that reaped the violence of state-sanctioned military reprisal. Alternatively, Southern Paiutes sought protective alliances from settler Mormons against predatory western Ute slavers.

Particularly insightful is Blackhawk’s powerful indictment against the long-term violence of intellectual arrogance. By wedding endemic poverty with derisive racial bigotry and making them biological determinants, men of influence like Mark Twain and anthropologist Julian Steward dehumanized non-equestrian “digger” Indians and influenced federal policy for decades. Like the mapmakers of the eighteenth century who “produced the knowledge from which conquest could flow,” Steward was an intellectual mapmaker who shaped a generation of ethnographers and policymakers and tried to suppress native self-determination in the name of biological and cultural inferiority and thus re-enslaved a modern people with a timeless primitivity. Though his theories are now dated, Blackhawk argues Steward’s work had already provided the ethnographic “lingua franca” for analyzing all American Indians, and his work remains a crippling legacy for studying the non-equestrian cultures of the Great Basin.

Although Blackhawk writes well, is well-read, and provides new insights into the nature of the early West, his book contains troubling flaws. He includes no bibliography, and a reader must comb his extensive footnotes to tease out his sources—an annoying lapse for a book. More serious is his inconsistency in identifying tribes and bands throughout the book, making it appear that he is either unwilling—or unable—to differentiate between indigenous groups, even when it is important to do so. For example, significant differences do exist between Northwestern and Western Shoshone, or Timpanogos and southern Colorado Utes, and the generic “Ute” or “Shoshone” is neither a sufficient (nor fair) identifier when discussing specific bands—especially in reference to commercial slaving, or Colorado and Utah Utes. Along with this inconsistency are occasional historiographic and ethnographic errors, moments of speculative history, and a few conclusions that remain arguable. For example, placing the Arze-Garcia expedition in Paiute country when they met “Guaracher” (Guasach) rather than on the Green River crossing in identifiably Ute country as generally accepted (negating his argument about displacing Paiutes), misspelling Antonga (Utah’s Blackhawk), suggesting eastern Utes trafficked in the western slave trade which they did not (they sold war captives), or that Utah Utes “ferried” their slaves to New Mexico when most evidence suggests they usually sold them to New Mexican traders who carried them to Abiquiu. While none of this negates the violence done to Paiute slaves, it raises questions about Blackhawk’s conclusions regarding which Utes were complicit in expanding the violence, against whom, and why.

While the early part of the book is richly detailed, as a reader moves deeper into the book it becomes less comprehensive, more shallowly researched, and events are glossed over. Consequently, he skims over the complexity of nineteenth century Colorado “diplomacy,” Utah Indian wars, and California/Oregon Trail violence. Chronology becomes elastic as Blackhawk uses individual events as evidence, but makes broad generalizations to summarize the American era as

denouement rather than culmination of violence. Thus, if a reader is expecting a comprehensive narrative history of the Great Basin, Violence over the Land, will disappoint. It is not, and was probably never meant to be one. However, the book is insightful, a valuable addition to Native American voices on Great Basin history, but should be read within the limits and context in which it was written. It is an argument about the impact of violence on Indian cultures in the early west, and remains a passionate and eloquent argument about the way different native societies adapted to their new and violent world, with a poignant demand for acceptance today.

SONDRA JONES University of Utah

Shoshonean Peoples and the Overland Trail: Frontiers of the Utah Superintendency of Indian Affairs, 1849–1869 By Dale L. Morgan; edited and introduced by Richard L. Saunders; ethnohistorical essay by Gregory E. Smoak. (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007. viii + 424 pp. Cloth, $39.95.)

THROUGH THE DEDICATION of scholars such as Richard Saunders, Dale L. Morgan continues to make significant contributions to the history of the American West thirty-seven years after his death. Saunders, a meticulous scholar in his own right, has done heroic work editing three of Morgan’s studies of Indian relations and the road across the plains: “The Administration of Indian Affairs in Utah, 1851–1858,” which appeared in the Pacific Historical Review in 1948; an unpublished study, “Indian Affairs on the California Trail, 1849–1860”; and the massive documentary collection, “Washakie and the Shoshoni,” which consisted of Morgan’s transcriptions of federal Indian correspondence published in ten parts between 1953 and 1958 in Annals of Wyoming . Saunders carefully updated or completed many of Morgan’s citations and wrote an excellent introductory essay that places the material in the context of Morgan’s life and the evolution of Shoshonean studies. Gregory E. Smoak’s ethnohistorical essay, The Newe (the People) and the Utah Superintendency,” is an essential overview that delivers on its promise to provide “a deeper understanding of the native people, their culture, and their history”(33).

Shoshonean Peoples and the Overland Trail brings to life two commanding figures, Washakie and Brigham Young. Mormon stalwart James S. Brown described the Shoshone leader as bold, noble, hospitable, honorableand considered him the best orator he ever met. Washakie was a superbly talented politician and the most powerful leader of the Eastern Shoshones, whose heartland straddled the overland road from the North Platte to the Wasatch Mountains. He brilliantly managed

what historian John Peterson described as the “volatile triangle” of Mormons, government officials, and the tribes that complicated interracial relations in the Intermountain West. The Shoshones long boasted that they had never killed a white man, and Washakie used his fame as a peacemaker to secure a reservation in the Wind River Valley. As early as 1843, cartographer Charles Preuss observed that white incursions had already “ruined the country” of the Shoshones and they deserved compensation. Before the emigrants came, Washakie told Frederick Lander fifteen years later, buffalo, elk and antelope covered the hills; but now “he saw only wagons with white tops and men riding upon their horses; that his people were very poor, and had fallen back into the valleys of the mountains to dig roots and get meat for their little ones”(51).

Morgan’s article on Brigham Young’s administration of Utah’s Indian affairs paints a very positive view while noting that his term as superintendent “was from beginning to end a stormy one”(82). In 1852, subagent Jacob Holeman defined the conflict of interest that soured Indian relations in Utah under Young’s supervision: Holeman complained to Washington that the Mormon prophet was “making use of his office, as superintendent, and the money of the Government, to promote the interest of his Church”(61). Yet O. H. Irish, one of Young’s most talented successors, acknowledged it was his duty to use the Mormon leader’s influence to implement the government’s policies.

These documents clearly describe the Shoshone struggle to defend their homes from intruders, whether they be miners, Mormons, or the military. In 1867, Utah Superintendent F. H. Head forthrightly defined the philosophy that had been used to justify stealing tribal lands since the founding of the American Republic: “It has been the correct theory of government that since the Indians do not make the highest use of the soil, we may take it from them”(366).

The proliferation of primary sources available on the Internet raises the question of how long documentary histories such as this will be viable. Much of this material is available at the Nevada Observer web site and elsewhere. But the carefully edited Shoshonean Peoples and the Overland Trail provides a wealth of background information and insights not found in the ether. The collection is a treasure trove for anyone interested in the evolution of relations between American sojourners and native peoples on the overland road. Saunders’ masterful editing makes this wonderful compilation good to the last page of the book’s thoroughly remarkable appendix.

WILL BAGLEY Salt Lake City

The Mormon Church on Trial: Transcripts of the Reed Smoot Hearings. Edited by Michael Harold Paulos. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008. xxxiii +709 pp. Cloth, $49.95.)

THE FOUR VOLUMES of transcripts of the hearings before the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections on the right of Senator Reed Smoot of Utah to retain his seat came to my attention nearly fifty years ago and again while researching for various works including Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (1986). The Mormon Church on Trial offers an abridgement of some of the most important testimony and statements.

The book begins with valuable introductory material. An editor’s preface precedes an introduction by Harvard Heath that places Smoot’s career in context and considers the importance of the hearings and the surrounding political events. The editor then lists the members of the senate committee and offers a chronology of the protest, hearings, and eventual senate vote. Transcripts of the hearings and the closing statements follow. The text ends with a statement by Franklin S. Richards, principal attorney for the LDS church, and an index.

Footnotes and headnotes throughout the text add valuable comments. These include insightful documents from Smoot, Carl Badger, other observers, newspapers, and citations from knowledgeable historians. Nevertheless, I found as superfluous the editor’s comments that J. Reuben Clark had marked particular sections in his copy of the hearings.

The hearings are significant. Following Smoot’s 1903 election, a group of prominent anti-Mormon clergy, business people, and lawyers protested. They charged that Smoot and the other LDS general authorities continued to promote illegal polygamy and polygamous cohabitation and that Smoot had taken oaths inconsistent with his obligations as a senator.

These charges were so general that the committee justified investigating virtually all aspects of the recent social, economic, and political history of the LDS church. Moreover, the rules of evidence in judicial proceedings did not apply. Witnesses testified to unsubstantiated fabrication and hearsay, and the committee gave such testimony as much credence as verifiable evidence. The committee’s general counsel, Robert W. Tayler, and chair, Julius Caesar Burrows, made certain all of it appeared in the record.

Smoot’s attorneys Waldemar Van Cott and Augustus S. Worthington tried to confine the investigation to evidence that would prove him personally unfit for office. The wide-ranging investigation and the admission of hearsay and fabrication made their mission impossible.

Even credible testimony hurt Smoot’s case. Credible witnesses showed that the church leadership on the general and local level had interfered in political, economic, and social affairs far beyond what most Americans thought acceptable.

Most significantly, friendly witnesses like President Joseph F. Smith testified that Mormons continued illegal polygamous cohabitation.

In addition, credible testimony showed that new plural marriages had taken place since the Manifesto. Several of those who had entered in or performed such marriages were simply too old or infirm to travel to Washington to testify. Two members of the Twelve, however, who had encouraged, participated in, and performed such marriages–John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley–were relatively young, and they could have testified. Instead, they avoided the service of summons and declined to appear voluntarily. By doing so, they hurt Smoot’s case, perhaps as much as if they had testified.

Given the lax rules of evidence and the pervasive prejudice against Smoot and the Mormons, it seems a miracle that he survived at all. Even though the evidence showed that Smoot, himself, had done nothing illegal, the committee voted to recommend his expulsion, and a majority of the senate agreed. Since, however, Smoot had already taken his seat, expulsion required a two-thirds majority; and the opponents lost by five votes. Politics undoubtedly played a significant role in his victory.

Sadly, anyone who follows current events will recognize that virulent anti-Mormon prejudice persists today, more than a century after the hearings.

THOMAS G. ALEXANDER Brigham Young University

Radicalism in the Intermountain West, 1890-1920: Socialists, Populists, Miners, and Wobblies. By David R. Berman.(Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2007. xiv + 386 pp. Cloth, $39.95.)

FROM THE FIRST, radical movements have been an important part of the history of the United States. Every generation, including the present one, has seen the emergence of a radicalism that called for thoroughgoing, fundamental change in the organization, structure, and operation of society, as opposed to small adjustments, and offered alternative visions of how to live and organize life; and that emphasized inclusion and redistribution, seeking to enlarge the sphere of freedom and opportunity, ie, a radicalism, not from the right of the political spectrum, but from the left. Though such movements are often seen as essentially a footnote, marginal to the main story and meriting nothing more than passing interest, paying serious attention to them is important. Doing so can illuminate the past in new ways. A different picture can emerge, not only in details, but in essentials, challenging the “master narrative” and requiring us to think differently about the past, and also, then, about the present and the future.

Left radicalism was particularly significant in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries, when capitalism was at its most naked, and to that period David R. Berman turns both his attention and his considerable knowledge, focusing on the Intermountain West and the “hotbed” of radicalism existing there between 1890 and 1920. Specifically he discusses Populism, Socialism, and radical labor unionism, in particular the Western Federation of Miners and the Industrial Workers of the World, with an emphasis on socialism. The belief of these groups that the United States was in crisis; American democracy in a state of near collapse; and life under a capitalistic system fundamentally unfair, both impoverishing people and preventing them from reaching their full potential as human beings; that government functioned as a tool for privileged groups and against the well-being of the majority of people; that only the most thoroughgoing social and political change could bring about social and economic justice resonated with, and motivated, tens of thousands of people, and struck fear into the hearts and minds of many more. Readers of this journal may be particularly interested to know this was as true of Utah as it was of any other area in the Intermountain West. The conventional wisdom that Utah has never had a radical past, at least not one of any importance, is both simplistic and a-historical, essentially equating Utah’s politically conservative present with its past, and over-simplifying both. Radicals in Utah called not only for a change in economic and political arrangements, but for an entirely new way of life—a point that Berman might have given more attention to—and, while he draws on most of the relevant secondary literature in sketching Utah radicalism, he overlooks recent work on socialism in particular that would have expanded the story he tells.

Historians have paid attention to radicalism in individual Intermountain States during this period of time, but Berman is the first to consider it in the region as a whole. His intent is to begin to recover that aspect of the region’s past, specifying its thematic patterns, its turbulence, passion, conflict, risk-taking, ethical witnessing, and violent confrontations. The book is an important contribution to our understanding of radicalism in the region and throughout the United States. It is deeply researched, bringing together the secondary literature on the subject and Berman’s own considerable research in primary sources. The book proceeds chronologically, and while the discussion is wide-ranging, it is organized around election cycles. One of its great strengths is the discussion of the larger context— as he says, “the broader environment in which the radicals functioned, the havoc they raised, and the reaction to them”(xiii).

Berman’s basic conclusion about the importance of radicalism in the region is a familiar one about the impact of radicalism in general—Eduard Bernstein first made it in behalf of the reformist wing of the Second International in 1899. “The contributions of the Populists, Socialists, and radical labor unions,” Berman says, “rested largely in building the agenda for change and, perhaps most of all, in frightening the powers that be into making reforms that helped democratize the political system, increase public control of corporations, and further protection of

working people” (295-96). Radical movements, in other words, were responsible for much of what we take for granted today, including the right to vote; reasonable work days and conditions; the continued, if unfulfilled, promise of equality of opportunity; and the guarantees, however tenuous and fragile, of freedom of speech and assembly. Without movements for radical change emphasizing inclusion, social justice, and egalitarianism, our society would be less democratic, less open, less tolerant, less free, and less humane.

JOHN MCCORMICK Salt Lake Community College

Madame Chair: The Political Autobiography of an Unintentional Pioneer.

By Jean Miles Westwood, edited by Linda Sillitoe. (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2007. vii + 230 pp. Cloth, $34.95.)

JEAN MILES WESTWOOD was a “first”: The first woman to be chair of a national political party. She was “Madame Chair”when all past major political party leaders had been “chairmen.” She was the first member of her faith to occupy such a high secular partisan position. She was the first party chair from the rural western state of Utah — literally, a girl born and raised in the coal mining area of rural Price, Utah,to hold a powerful political position traditionally held by those from eastern states. She was, indeed, qualified to lead the Democratic National Committee, however, her life’s path was one of being a team-player in political campaigns rather than a lifetime spent in hot pursuit of the political party’s powerful national post.

Madame Chair, edited by Utah writer Linda Sillitoe and published ten years after Jean Westwood’s death in 1997, features a Foreword by Utah historian and writer Floyd A. O’Neil. This autobiography, in fifteen chapters and 216 pages, tells good stories: the behind-the-scenes party worker; the 1968 story of the Democratic Party coming apart at the national convention in Chicago as well as in Utah; coping with defeat, and implementing unprecedented party reforms; and the inside story of George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign —from beginning to end. She was there when the Republican Party’s “Watergate” scandal erupted. accepting the role of Party Chair after defeat in forty-nine of fifty states, accepting the painful calls of her Party colleagues later to resign. When Watergate figures were coping with prison sentences and Richard Nixon had resigned, Jean Westwood had returned home to the West tolive her last two decades quietly with family and friends.

Jean Westwood’s life is seen in historical perspective. She had effectively penetrated a large section of the political and historical “glass ceiling.” She had emerged to be the first woman leader of a major political party in 1972—nine

years before Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981. Twelve years before Gerradine Ferraro was the first woman candidate for Vice President of a major political party. Thirty-four years before Nancy Pelosi was chosen by her peers to be the first woman Speaker of the House. Thirty-six years before Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign to become the first woman nominee of a major party for President. A woman who is a “first” is a woman to be respected, because a leader who seeks change is all-too often a person criticized for achieving change.

Jean Westwood was indeed a “pioneer” who became a “first” and a role model for many. However, predictably, her first-time national status was a threat to traditional advocates of the status quo. Although Jean Westwood was a wife and mother, she was also a successful businesswoman and political leader, party activist and Mormon feminist. This combination caused many men and many women to perceive the shy woman from Utah to be endangering American traditional roles and cultural patterns. She would be praised, and she would be condemned. Nevertheless, she was willing to be a visible leader in America’s political process. She was willing to be a “first.” In doing so, Jean Westwood changed American political history.

TIM CHAMBLESS University of Utah

The J. Golden Kimball Stories. By Eric A. Eliason. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. xvviii + 186 pp. Cloth, $50.00; paper, $20.00.)

THE STORY GOES that LDS president Heber J. Grant and Seventy J. Golden Kimball are standing beside each other in the restroom of a Salt Lake café. A third man enters, recognizes Kimball, and asks how he is doing?

The aged Kimball readily admits that he is having trouble urinating. “But I’m standing here next to a prophet of God, and I can see that he can’t pee either. So I guess I’m doing alright.”

This may well be the only J. Golden Kimball story not included in Eric Eliason’s work on Mormonism’s “Will Rogers,” a plainspoken church authority renowned for a left-handed directness that many still enjoy today.

Born in 1892, the son of Heber C. Kimball and Christeen Golden, the younger Kimball rose to church prominence as one of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventy (he was never an apostle). His high-pitched and colorfully blunt sermons increased his popularity as a speaker and he soon packed chapels and tabernacles wherever he appeared.

Kimball’s sermons and daily conversations were laced with “damn” and “hell,” words he claimed were leftovers from a larger cowboy vocabulary. This common

man approach to sometimes thorny theological issues set him apart from his more staid brethren and caused him to be well received by non-Mormons as well.

Eliason examines the folkloric nature of Kimball, putting into context the stories told about the LDS church’s “swearing apostle.” All of the more commonly known “J. Golden” stories are featured in the work, including several in which Kimball swears in General Conference.

Although Eliason clearly distinguishes between the folklore and the actual records of Kimball’s sermons, he also points out that just because something is labeled folklore doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. But Kimball’s unabated popularity among Mormons makes an even larger point: that even if it isn’t, it damn well ought to be.

Eliason focuses on this telling nature of why such stories endure in a culture that would seem to reject them. He also makes clear Kimball’s contribution to the Mormon transition into modern society, examining Kimball as a “performerhero”in a “cross-cultural perspective” and illustrating just how a self-deprecating humor can ease tensions between groups that are often unnecessarily at odds.

The book is broken into chapters, or thematic elements of the Kimball stories, highlighting just what made them work then and, more importantly, why they still do.

With the exception of Porter Rockwell, no other figure in Mormon history is as colorful as “Uncle Golden.” He remains endeared among Mormons primarily through stories that promote determined individuality in the face of sometimes overwhelming ecclesiastical correlation.

It is Mormonism’s attachment to one man’s departure from mandated convention that causes Eliason’s work to say as much about Mormons today as it does about Uncle Golden then.

ROBERT KIRBY Herriman

Revisiting Thomas F. O’Dea’s The Mormons: Contemporary Perspectives Edited by Cardell K. Jacobson, John P. Hoffman, and Tim B. Heaton.(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2008. xxiv + 462 pp. Cloth, $34.95.)

THOMAS O’DEA’S SOCIOLOGICAL

RESEARCH on Mormonism can only be described as seminal. Although O’Dea began studying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a doctoral student associated with Harvard University’s Comparative Study of Values in Five Cultures,it was his 1957 landmark study, The Mormons, that established him as a key scholar of Mormon society.

The Mormons, which remains one of the one of the most widely referenced social scientific studies of Mormonism, is now a little more than fifty years old,

and despite its probing analysis of Mormon society and its landmark status, enough has happened to Mormonism to merit a volume of critical essays that both revisit O’Dea’s findings and highlight important areas of study he left unexplored. As the editors of the book under review put it: the “essays … examine where O’Dea ‘got it right’ as well as where tensions remain” (xi).

The book is organized into three parts. The first section, comprised of essays by Lynn England, O. Kendall White, Douglas Davies and Terryl L. Givens, seeks to understand O’Dea’s work in its context and interrogates some of the analytical frameworks he used—especially his mastery/mystery dichotomy—for understanding the Mormon mind and Mormon society. The second section, with essays by Carrie Miles, Janet Bennion, Armand Mauss, Melvyn Hammarberg, Michael Nielsen, Barry Balleck, Loren Marks, and Brent Beal, deals with contemporary social issues in the Mormon context. The essays in this section address the place of women in the LDS church, the church’s racial policies, Mormon attitudes toward sexual identity, and the relationship of the Latter-day Saints to American society. The essays in the volume’s final section, written by Armand Mauss (his second contribution to the collection), David Stewart, Henri Gooren, David Knowlton, and Sarah Busse Spencer, discuss the international dimensions of Mormonism.

For readers interested in Utah or western history, some of the essays in this retrospective will be of greater interest than others. The piece by Davies, for instance, examines the way O’Dea used the concept of mastery, which was to some extent inherent in Latter-day Saint theology, to understand nineteenthcentury Mormonism. According to Davies, O’Dea was able to explain Mormon cooperative experimentation (which reached its pinnacle in the establishment of communal societies in places like Orderville, Utah) as founded on individual Mormons’ active self-mastery and the curbing of self-interest for the good of the whole. A similar yearning to master nature also guided Mormons in their early water management efforts in the Great Basin. Mastery, however, also had its darker side, argues Davies, at least as O’Dea understood it. Following O’Dea’s logic, Davies claims that it was the Mormons’ “desire for mastery over their enemies,” particularly in the territorial period of Utah’s history, that led to historical black marks like the Mountain Meadows Massacre (58-59).

The essay by Michael Nielsen and Barry Balleck also will be of interest to students of Utah history for the way it places Mormonism’s relationship to the American state in historical context, beginning with the theocratic government of the Utah Territory in the nineteenth century. Referencing O’Dea, the authors point out that this relationship continues to be fraught with occasional tensions, despite the expansion of Mormonism beyond its early Utah context and its unfolding into a worldwide church. In the estimation of Neilson and Balleck, war and military policy have often brought the strains between church and state to the surface. Indeed, while the Mormon hierarchy has tended to adopt a pro-government posture since Utah won statehood in 1896, the LDS church has also chosen

at times to oppose policies it believes are not in the best interests of the people who live in the Intermountain West, Mormonism’s cultural heartland. The church’s resistance to a Utah deployment of the MX missile in the 1970s is just one example of this stance.

BRANDON JOHNSON Utah Humanities Council

Dividing Western Waters: Mark Wilmer and Arizona v. California. By Jack L. August, Jr. (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 2007. xix + 172 pp. Cloth, $32.95.)

OCCASIONALLY IN HISTORY it seems that the right person is in the right place with the right preparation, disposition and demeanor to perform the right action in the right way to achieve the right, critically important result, such as George Washington and his unique combination of will and leadership during and after the American Revolution. On a more limited scale (in particular, Arizona and the other states within the Colorado River drainage, including Utah), the Wisconsin-born, Phoenix lawyer, Mark Wilmer, is portrayed here, deservingly, in that same light of honor.

The account provided is simultaneously a brief biography of a seasoned, skillful and thoroughly professional trial lawyer and an overview history of one of the landmark cases in western water law, Arizona v. California, decided in 1963 by the United States Supreme Court, in which Wilmer played the decisive role. In short, Arizona and California were embroiled in a long-standing dispute over the waters of the Colorado River. A 1922 compact allocated the main-stem waters between the upper and lower basins, guaranteeing 7.5 million acre-feet per year to the lower basin (basically Arizona, California, and Nevada), with a similar amount for the upper basin. With the exploding growth in southern California during the 1930s and 1940s, California had developed a strategy to put water to beneficial use as rapidly as possible, in order to buttress its “first in time, first in right” claim to the lion’s share of the Colorado in the lower basin, taking advantage of slower developing states such as Arizona.

Wilmer was brought onto Arizona’s legal team when its case before the appointed Special Master was floundering and appeared lost. Wilmer’s thorough research engendered a novel theory that Congress, in the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act and other related enactments, had already apportioned the Colorado’s water among the lower basin states. In a rather brazen move, Wilmer asked the Special Master to scrap Arizona’s case in chief, already fully presented, and substitute for it his new theory of the case, even though California was only part way through its response. If Wilmer’s theory were upheld, it would guarantee Arizona

enough water to justify the eventual Central Arizona Project (CAP) and render California’s claims to more water than its allotted 4.4 million acre-feet inconsequential.

Both the Special Master and later the majority of the Supreme Court adopted Wilmer’s views, and Arizona pulled off an improbable victory that enabled it to develop the water infrastructure it presently enjoys. In many ways too lengthy to explore here, Arizona v. California was the defining, crystallizing feature in what is known as “the law of the river,” the Colorado River. It established the federal role on the river and clarified not only the diversions each state could take, but also recognized the pivotal role of Congress’ enactments. It recognized “Congressional apportionment” of the river, rather than relying purely on prior appropriation. The American Southwest would be a far different place had California won that lawsuit.

For Utah specifically, the greatest relevance of this decision probably lies in the Court’s holding that “the [Boulder Canyon Project] Act was not intended to give California any claim to share in the tributary waters of the Lower Basin states,” (89), but only in the main-stem water now delivered from Glen Canyon Dam above Lees Ferry. This means that California cannot claim any water from the Virgin River Basin, the only part of Utah in the Lower Basin; that issue remains solely one among Utah and downstream Arizona and Nevada, just as California could not claim water from the Gila River in Arizona.

This book would serve as a useful primer to a beginning lawyer or to any interested student of the law of the river. Aside from some slightly distracting defective editing and proofreading, it is a valuable overview of this critical bit of regional history and a fitting tribute to a dedicated, professional lawyer able to serve well in the right place and time.

A. SCOTT LOVELESS Brigham Young University

“The Skeleton in Grandpa’s Barn” And Other Stories of Growing Up in Utah

Edited by Stanford J. Layton. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008. xi+ 271 pp. Paper, $23.95.)

“THE SKELETON IN GRANDPA’S BARN” And Other Stories of Growing Up in Utah presents episodes in Utah history from the viewpoint of children, a crucial and often overlooked perspective. Stanford J. Layton, former editor of Utah Historical Quarterly, has chosen eighteen excellent articles previously published in the Quarterly, each accompanied by an historic photograph, dealing with topics that reflect the state’s history and that range from hilarious to tragic. That contrast becomes evident in the first two articles. Fae Decker Dix recalls

her acute teen-age angst when her father refused to follow the instructions of the LDS church’s music committee to soften the militant lyrics of several old Mormon hymns. When he belted out the old lyrics, louder than the rest of the choir sang the new ones, her sister found a method of revenge that could occur only to a Mormon child and that left me laughing out loud. Immediately following that is Saline Hardee Fraser’s memories, carefully recorded and annotated by her daughter, Marinane, of March8,1924. She traces her experiences and emotions as the family hears the explosions at the Castle Gate Coal Mine and subsequently learns that both her father and grandfather were among the 172 miners killed.

Eleven of the eighteen articles are first person accounts. Seven describe the authors’ lives in specific Utah towns: LaMar Petersen recalls his family home and his father’s store, which included the post office, in Eden. Robert S. Mikkelsen describes growing up with Union Pacific trains running near his home in Echo and then the town’s death when those trains stopped coming. Josephine Pace remembers the buildings, but most of all the people of Kimberly. “Growing up Greek in Helper,” Helen Z. Papanikolas felt safe in her small town of Greeks, Italians, Irish,and Americans, despite forays by the Ku Klux Klan. Fawn M. Brodie remembers the debts and difficulties associated with the family farm in Huntsville.

Yoshiko Uchida recalls a very different kind of town, Topaz, the camp hastily cobbled together to contain Japanese Americans interned during World War II. From the poignancy of a Boy Scout marching band greeting new arrivals at the gates of the still incomplete town to dust and cold that drove people inside inadequate buildings, she helps readers feel her own emotions and those of the children in the nursery school where she and her sister worked.

Herbert Z. Lund, Jr. remembers the skeleton of a murderer executed at the Utah State Prison “bedded down with old issues of the Improvement Era.” His father, a physician at the prison, had been given the remains and boiled it to a skeleton in a field north of Beck’s Hot Springs (reportedly terrifying a passing hobo) to make it into a teaching specimen. Nevada W. Driggs shares her mother’s stories collected from the pioneers of Parowan, including her grandmother’s recollections of a nearly frozen John C. Fremont recovering in her bed.

Seven articles are academic in approach, from David A. Hales’s collection of stories about gypsies coming through towns to Miriam B. Murphy and Craig Fuller’s study of children’s winter games in ice and snow. Gary James Bergera uses Everett Ruess’s writings to examine his mysterious disappearance in the Utah desert. Sondra Jones compares whites raising Indian children purchased in New Mexico (to be slaves) and Utah (to be redeemed) and finds striking similarities between the treatment children received in both states. Davis Bitton compares views of late nineteenth-century Mormon frontier youth from LDS members and gentiles.

Two articles focus on polygamy. William G. Hartley’s “in-depth look at an

everyday, garden variety plural LDS family during its child-rearing years”(141-43) between 1865 and 1896 presents a careful study of the ordinary elements of growing up and the children’s subsequent behavior as adults, while Martha Sonntag Bradley’s discussion of children hiding from federal authorities when one or both parents were sent to prison in the late nineteenth century may well offer insights into the feelings of FLDS children recently taken from their parents in Texas.

The Skeleton in Grandpa’s Barn , the fourth volume in Signature’s Favorite Readings series, entertains while it informs. Each selection is fascinating by itself, and collectively they present a broad and inclusive picture of significant elements in Utah’s history.

COLLEEN WHITLEY Brigham Young University

BOOK NOTICES

With Anxious Care: The Restoration of the Utah State Capitol. By Judith E. McConkie. Photographs by Michael A. Dunn. (Salt Lake City: The Utah State Capitol Preservation Board, 2008. 126 pp. Cloth, $39.95.)

This richly illustrated book uses historical and contemporary photographs to reveal the majesty and detail of the Utah State Capitol. Designed by Richard Karl August Kletting, Utah’s “Dean of Architecture,” the capitol was constructed between 1912 and 1916. In 2002 the Capitol Preservation Board and its executive director and architect, David H. Hart, began a six year restoration and earthquake stabilization project that was completed with a rededication ceremony on January 4, 2008.The five chapters are entitled, “The Capitol Preservation Project”; “Kletting’s Capitol; Architectural Preservation and Innovation”; “The Capitol Art Collection”; and “With Anxious Care”—a brief essay on the enduring symbol of Capitol Hill, the need for ongoing stewardship of the building, and a tribute to the hundreds of workers who made the restoration a reality. A chronology and short historical essays by Faye and Richard Tholen about Arsenal Hill, location of the Utah Capitol and the Utah State Capitol Commission are also included in the volume.

Salt Lake City: Then and Now. By Kirk Huffaker. (San Diego: Thunder Bay Press, 2007. 144 pp. Cloth: $18.95.)

Kirk Huffaker, Executive Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation, has compiled a most welcome addition to the Thunder Bay Press Then and Now Series of major cities. The book offers an interesting look at nearly seventy different buildings and views in and around Salt Lake City. With the “then” black and white photograph on the left page and the “now” color photograph on the right page and well-written captions for each, the book provides a visual summary of the “successes” and “losses” of the historic preservation movement in Utah during the last half of the twentieth century. Readers are sure to find many surprises in the pages of this book as to what has been preserved and what now occupies the location of earlier buildings.

The San Rafael Swell. By Dottie Grimes. (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2008. 128 pp. Paper, $19.99.)

This volume compiled by Dottie Grimes, Administrator of the Emery County Archives, provides a delightful illustrated history of one of the most scenic and interesting areas of the state. The two thousand square miles that make up the San Rafael Swell were first occupied by prehistoric peoples for hundreds of years. Beginning in the 1830s a kaleidoscope of visitors on the Old Spanish Trail, explorers, militiamen, cattlemen, outlaws, prospectors, miners, CCC workers, and they continue today with countless outdoor enthusiasts. The collection of more than two hundred photographs and captions provides a stimulating glimpse of the Swell and its history.

Whispering Smith: His Life

and Misadventures

By Allen P. Bristow. (Santa Fe: Sunstone Press, 2007. 173 pp. Paper, $24.95.)

James L. “Whispering”Smith, a colorful western character who spent time in Utah from 1888 to 1900, was the subject of Frank Spearman’s popular novel Whispering Smith published in 1906. The book became the subject of three films, the last,starring Alan Ladd,was released in 1948. Allen Bristow has traced the career of Whispering Smith and found evidence of him in Ogden, Castle, Gate, and Price. In Carbon County he was a railroad detective for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad working with the another detective, Cyrus “Doc” Shores, during the Pleasant Valley Coal Company payroll robbery at Castle Gate in 1897.

A

American Antiquities Act (1906), 358

Ancient Indian Robes (High Priests’ Vestments), 360-61, 365-66, 369

Anderson, May, urges special children’s hospital, 339, 350, 340

Arapeen, Ute Chief, accompanies Brigham Young on northern expedition, 18

Army Bill, 67-69, 71

Aylett, Alice Smith, nurse training at Holy Cross Hospital, 297-98

B

Bath house; activities at, 219, 221; advertisement for, 220, 221; as a hotel, 221-22; Beck’s Hot Springs, 224; description of, 220, 222; new, 222-23; Salt Lake City, 212; Salt Lake Sanitariums, 224; Wasatka Springs, 224

Beckwith, Frank, opinion of Pectol Shields, 362

Begay, Robert, Navajo archaeologist, validity of oral traditions discussed, 375

Behunin, Earl, Indian artifacts collector, unearths ancient Mormon temple robes “HighPriests Vestments,” 360-61, 365

Bennett, James Gordon, New York Herald editor, criticizes Brigham Young, 27-28

Bernhisel, John M., territorial delegate, 11; confrontation with Secretary of Interior JacobThompson, 27-29; 70; meets with President James Buchanan, 23-24

Big Mountain, 62;U.S. Army Capt., Albert Tracey’s description of, 62

Bishop Abel Leonard nurses residents, 285

Black, Jeremiah S., U. S. attorney general, receives letters, 29-31

Black’s and Ham’s Forks rivers junction, 48 Blair, Seth Millington, Texas Ranger and lawyer, appointed Utah Territorial AttorneyGeneral, 72; converts to Mormonism, 71; corresponds with Sam Houston, 72-73

Bland, Helen, nurse training of, 295

Booth, Lona, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 296

Brennan, Clara, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 287-88

Brewer, Charles E., U. S. Army sergeant, assists Howard Spencer, 84 Bridger Butte (Outpost Butte), Wyoming, 5-6, 52

Brown, Albert, describes emigrant road, 41 Brown, Arthur, Howard O. Spencer’s defense attorney, 90, 91 Brown, Lorenzo, and Utah War, 58 Bryant, Edwin, describes Warm Springs, 213 Buchanan, James, U. S. President; advisors urges military in Utah, 33-34; cabinet, 22; health problems of, 37; issued military orders, 5; pardons Mormon leaders, 40, 77 Bull, Agnes Cowan, 247 Bullock, Thomas, salubrious benefits of Warm Springs, 215, 217 Burns, Faye, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 290, 292 Burr, David H.; accused of corruption, 33; federal surveyor general, 9, 15; letter to U. S. attorney general Jeremiah Black, 30; threatened, 15-16 Burton, Robert T., Colonel, Nauvoo Legion, observes U. S. Army, 42 Busk, Neal, (grandson of Ephraim and Dorothy Pectol), 364, suggests location for PectolShields, 374-75

C

Cache Cave, 55, Utah militia command post and express station, 54 Caine, John T., stockholder in Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company, 322 Camp Floyd, established by Col. Albert Sydney Johnston, 64 Camp Scott, 49, 50, 51 Camp Winfield, Wyoming, 47; U. S. Army Col. Edmund Brook Alexander receives Brigham Young’s letter at, 117 Campbell, Shirlynn, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 289 Cannarella, Mary Jo, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 292, 294-95

Capitol Reef National Monument, local boosters of, 364 Chandless, William, describes Warm Springs, 214

Children’s hospitals, 338 Chitty, Kay Kittrell, nurse historian, 291-92 Chong, Chinn, family, 117 City Creek Canyon;and Anderson Tower, 149, 150, 153; Rotarians spruce up, 156 Civilian Conservation Corps, enrollees, 210 Clayton, William, describes Warm Springs, 214-15 Clift, Al, witness to Ralph Pike attack, 83

Cluff, Harvey H., Hawaiian colonizing committee member, 318-19, 321; stockholder inIosepa Agricultural and Stock Company, 322, 323

Cluff, William W., Hawaiian colonizing committee member, 318-19; stockholder, IosepaAgricultural and Stock Company (IASC), 322

Colbourn, Thomas, lynching of, 116

Cook, John, Morrisite apostle, daughter Rebecca Cook Park, granddaughter MaragarettaPark Dressler, great grandson, Fred Dressler, 251

Cope, Maxine, nurse training LDS Hospital, 293-94

Coulson, Anna Elizabeth, nurse training, 28182, worked at Budge Hospital, 299; 297 Covington, Joe, grandson of Ephraim and Dorothy Pectol, 364

Crosby, Jesse W., and Utah War, 49

Cultural documentation, and oral history, 379-81

Cumming, Alfred, at Camp Scott, 50. Utah Territorial Governor, 19

Cumming, Elizabeth (AC wife), at Eckelsville, 50

Cummings, Benjamin T., proponent for Mormon relocation, 17

Currie, Lauchlin, Marriner Eccles assistant, 271-72

Cushing, Henry G., Howard O. Spencer trial witness, 89-90

D

Davis, Albert W., Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company (IASC)stockholder, 322

Davis, Jefferson, U. S. Senator, and Sam Houston, 76

DeSilver, Charles, 1857 map made by, 38-39 Devils Gate, Wyoming, 42

Dibble, Philo, Pioneer Hollow Station inscription, 53

Dotson, Peter K., federal official flees Utah, 16

Douglas, Stephen A., U. S. Senator, Springfield speech and Mormons, 31

Drummond, William W., Utah territorial judge, conflict with Utah’s probate courts, 15;letter to U. S. Attorney General Jeremiah Block, 29, 31; resignation letter, 26; TheMormon editorial attack on, 32-33

E

East Canyon; fortifications, 61, at Fort Wells and Eight Crossing, 60 Eccles, Campbell (ME son), attended Wharton School of Business, 271 Eccles, George (ME brother),academically trained in business, 271 Eccles, Marriner, 265, 273, 279, 280; and Advisory Council policies, 275-76; and macroeconomic theory, 276; and Federal Reserve Board policies, 274-75; and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 269; conflicts; with Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, 272-73, with Washington political system, 271-75; economic theory of, 270;First Security Corporation founder, 268; Governor Federal Reserve System, 270;influences on, 266-67; management style, 277-78; ownership of Oregon LumberCompany, 267-68; runs for political office, 299; views on Vietnam, 279 Eccles, Spencer (ME son),trained at Columbia University, 271 Eccles Investment Company holdings: Amalgamated Sugar Company, Oregon Lumber Company, Sego Milk Company, Utah Construction, 268 Echo Canyon, defense locations in, 54; 56, 57;narrows, 55 Echo Station, Mormon militia camp at, 57, 58

Eckelsville, description of, 50, 52; 51 Electric Board and Share Company (EBASCO), 144, 146 Evans, Janice, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 288

F

Felt, Louie B., urges support for special children’s hospital, 339; 340 Ferris, B. G., Mrs., describes Bath House, 221 Florez, John (RF brother), Hispanic civic leader, 174-75 Florez, Rey, Jr. (JF brother), elected to Utah legislature, 174 Floyd, John B., secretary of war, and the Mormons, 4-5 Folendorf, Gertrude R., Shriners Hospital administrator, 351 Fort Bridger, Mormon militiaburned, 50, 51 Fort Supply, Green River County seat,

Mormon militia destroyed, 49

Fort Wells, Mormon militia fortification in East Canyon, 60

Frank,Van, attempts to control Memory Grove, 154-55

Frazier, G. G., federal investigator and Pectol Shields, 365

Fuller, Frank, acting territorial governor, ordered arrests of Joseph Morris and other Morrisites, 255

G

General Electric Company, L. L. Nunn competitor, 140

Gerrard, Edith, nurse training LDS Hospital, 288, 289-90; and at University of Utah, 293,294, 295-96

Ginn, John I., and Utah War, 43

Gove, Jesse A., U. S. Army Captain, and Utah War, 47, 64

Grant, Heber J., LDS Church President, supports children’s hospital, 339, 341

Grant, Jedediah Morgan, voice of Mormon Reformation, 13

Great Shoshone and Twin Falls Power Company, 141, 146

H

Harris, Dora, seeks marriage license, 108-09 Hawaiians; celebrate Pioneer Day, 325; freight at Iosepa, 327; residents at Iosepa: John E. Broad, Archie Kennison, William Pukahi, Sr., 316;Troubadours at Iosepa, 329

Hayes, Ruby, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 292-93

Hendricks, Albert, Capitol Reef Superintendent, approves Pectol Shields transfer, 374

Hickman, Bill, and the Utah War, 46

Hockaday, John M., U. S attorney for Utah, meets President James Buchanan, 32 Hoge, E. D., state legislator,proposed to regulate mixed marriages, 118-19

Holiday, John, Navajo medicine man, witness for Navajo claim of Pectol Shields, 37174, 372

Holt, Claude, assisted in discovery of Pectol Shields, 358

Holy Cross Hospital; Moreau Hall nursing student residency at, 291; operated by Sistersof the Holy Cross, 283-84; student nursing curriculum at, 292; 293

Houston, Sam, met with Mormon officials, 68, 70; opposed to Army Bill, 73-75; Texas Senator, 66; views on the Utah War, 77-78 Howard, William, marriage to Ella Howarth, 123 Howarth, Ella, German immigrant, marriage to African American William Howard, 123 Howe, Marilyn J., nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 291 Hudson, John, California gold-seeker, describes Warm Springs, 217 Hurt, Garland, U. S. Indian agent for Utah, 16, 67

Hydroelectric generating plants: Jordan Narrows, 137; Olmstead on Provo River, 135, 139, 140, 141, 147

I

Imhoff, Carol, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 293, 296 Immigration laws, 318 Indians, Mormon relations with, 9-10 Ingall, Rufus, U. S. Army Captain, and Brigham Young and General Patrick Connor,245-46; gunplay with Mormons, 238, 240

Iosepa:Agricultural and Stock Company (IASC), 322; buildings at, 321, 333; descriptionof, 322; failures at, 331-33; gathering for Hawaiians, 329; Hawaiian settlement, 325; leprosy at, 330-31; monuments and gravestones at, 314, 334, 335; named forJoseph F. Smith, 322; selling of, 330; tax problems, 324; town site, 319; variationof United Order (Order of Enoch), 325-26

J

Johnston, Albert Sidney, 20, 76, 78 Johnston, William, California-bound traveler, describes Warm Springs, 216-17 Jones, Father, 250 Jorgensen, Evelyn, nurse training LDS Hospital, 297 Judd, John Walter, Salt Lake City judge, presides at Orson Spencer trial, 88

K

Kamakanaiu, George, Hawaiian colonizing committee member, 319 Kamauhoa, Ella Brunt, Hawaiian at Iosepa, 330

Kane, Thomas L., Mormon friend, advised

Mormons not to seek territorial status, 8; lobbing efforts and President James Buchanan, 32

Kauleinamoku, J. W., Hawaiian settler at Iosepa, 318, 319, 334

Kelly, Charles, Capitol Reef National Park Superintendent, opinion of Pectol Shields, 367

Kington Fort, 248

Kinney, John F., federal territorial judge, 28; flees Utah, 14-15; indictments against, 31; letters to U. S. Attorney General Jeremiah Black, 29-30

Kreutzer, Lee, National Park Service Cultural Resources Program manager, and the Pectol Shields, 371, 374

L

Land, Mormon policies toward, 8-9

Lanford, Benson L., 370

LDS Children’s Convalescent Home and Day Nursery (LDS Children’s Convalescent Hospital, Primary Children’s Hospital), 339-40, 343

LDS Church Hawaiian Temple, 329-30 LDS Hospital (Deseret Hospital, W. H. Grove LDS Hospital), operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 283

Littlefield, Ed., head of Utah Construction, 271, 276, 278

Livingston, LaRhett L., 1st Lt., 231, reactions to Steptoe nomination, 237; relations with Mormons, 233, 234 Loendorf, Lawrence, 370

Lost Creek, 59; Mormon fortification site at, 58

M

Magraw, William Miller Finney, 25, Brigham Young, critic,25-26

Malad River Power Company, 142

Malouf, Carling, opinion about Pectol Shields, 367

Marriage: Indian-white, 120; LDS church’s views on mixed marriages, 125; Utah laws and court cases, Act Regulating Marriage (1888), 109-10, 116-17, 118-19; miscegenation law (1939), 126-27; repeal of miscegenation law, 128-30; Reynolds v U. S., 110-11; William Howard (African American) to Ella Howarth (German-American), 123-24;

McBride, Audrey, nurse training LDS Hospital, 290 McGraw, William Miller Finney, 25; letter to President Franklin Pierce, 26 McQuillan, Marjorie, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 290, 295, 296 Memorial House, Memory Grove, 151, 153, 161

Memory Grove (Park): 148, 157, 158, 159, 166;memorials and monuments in: Capt. James F. Austin memorial, 151;Celebrity Grove, 158;Charles “Red” Beam Memorial, 162;DAV plaque, 152; French Railroad Box Car, 40 & 8, 155; German cannon, 164;Gold Star Hill, 162; Meditation Chapel, 153, 163;MIA Southeast Asia, 159-60; 145th Field Artillery, 152, 160;Pearl Harbor Survivors Association memorial, 160;Perception Garden, 157;VFW plaque, 156; WW I French 40 x 8 railroad car, 155, 165, 164; WWI Lost Servicemen, 151;Moran asphalt plant in, 152; Utah American Revolution Bicentennial Commission’s Horizon Committee activities at, 157-59 Mitchell, Frederick A., Hawaiian colonizing committee member, 318-19, 322 Mormon militia,camp sites: Echo Station, 58, 59, Pioneer Hollow Station, 53, Spring Creek Station, 61, Weber Station (Echo Canyon), 59;fortification sites, in Echo Canyon Narrows, 54, 55, 56, 57, Lost Creek, 59, Fort Wells and Eight Crossings, 61

Mormon reformation, 12-14 Mormon settlements, paradigms of, 317, 33536

Mormon wars, 6 Mormons in Texas, 68-71 Morris, Joseph, death of, 248, expelled from Slaterville, 251, 259, Morrisite prophet, 247,249 Morris,Virgo (JM brother), 249 Morrisites: Alvy, Richard, 256; Aste, Joseph and Ester 254, 263; Banks, John, 250, 258; Bateman, Mary Ann Baker 262;Bull, William Field 254, family, 247;Byrne, Ann Beus, 263; Byrne, Moses and Catherine Cardon, 254, 263; Cardon, John, 254, 255, 262; Cook, John, 252-53, (family), 251; Cook, Richard, 252-53; Cowan, James, Jr. and Priscilla, 254, 255, 260-61,

262; Cowan, James, Sr. 254, 255; Harris, William, 254; Hastings, Winter and Mary 256, 263; Higham, Charles and Jane, 256, 262, 263; Hill, William H., 256, 257, 258, 262-63; Jones, John E. and Mary, 254, 255, 256, 263; Jones, Rhode (White), 262; Jones, William J. and Ann, 254, 255, 262; Lee, Andrew and Charlotte Dinwoodey, 253-254, 262;Lee,Andrew 254, 256; Magee, William and Sarah, 254, 256; McCue, Peter Jr. 256; McCue, Peter Lamb and Mary, 253-54, 256, 262; Park, David Brooks, family, 259; Petrie, John, 256, 262; Sorenson, Jens Christian and Ann (Smith), 256, 263; White, William, 254, 256, 262; and Brigham Young, 260 Morss, Noel, archaeologist, and Pectol Shields, 367; Fremont Culture designation, 363

Mountain Dell, Johnston’s army camp site at, 63

Mountaineer’s Fort, Wyoming, site of, 46 Mowery, Sylvester, 2nd Lt., relations with Amanda Matilda Tanner, 237-38;social relations with Mormon women, 231-32, 235

Murders of, Parrish, Beason and William, Potter, Gardner G. 15

Murray Power Plant, construction workers at, 138

N

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and Pectol Shields, 369-70, oral tradition criteria and, 375, 377-78, 383-84

New York Herald, anti-Mormon editorial, 27 Nunn, Lucien L., and Reed Smoot, 132, 134; 135, 145; assets to EBASCO, 144

Nurses: training at hospitals, 284-85; W. W. Groves Latter-Day Saints Hospital, 281, 289;University of Utah’s College of Nursing, 286

Nyland, Mildred Wood, nurse training LDS Hospital, 295, 297

O

Ogden Electric Light Company, 136 P

Pacific Springs (Wyoming), 43, Mormon

militia harass U. S. Army at, 43 Park, David Brooks, and Unity McCue, and Elsie, 259 Parmley, LaVern, Primary Association President and Hospital board chair, 350, 351-52

Parrish, William, and Beason (son) murder of, 15

Paxman, Shirley, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 288, 298 Pectol, Dorothy (EP wife), and Pectol Shields, 357-58, 359; 363 Pectol, Ephraim Portman, 357, 375; declares Pectol Shields ancient Mormon artifacts, 359; with daughters Gold and Devona, 361 Pectol Shields:(CARE-Capitol Reef 11) represents creation, 359, (CARE-Capitol Reef12) represents hereafter life, 360, (CARE-Capitol Reef 191) meaning of, 359-60; dates of, 368; discovered by Ephraim Portman Pectol, 357-60;exhibited atTemple Square Museum, and Capitol Reef Park, 317, 318

Perception Garden and Zucker Fountain at Memory Grove, 158-59

Pete Suazo Business Center, 186, 187 Peters, George S., Utah District Attorney, Howard Orson Spencer trial, 92 Phillips, Leonard, testifies against Howard O. Spencer, 90 Pike, Ralph,U. S. Army Sergeant,82, assault charges against, and killing of, 85-86 Pioneer Hollow Station, Philo Dibble inscription at, 53 Potter, Gardner G. (Duff), murder of, 15 Pratt, Parley P., murder of, 18 Primary Children’s Medical Center (Primary Children’s Hospital), 338-39, 342, 348; acute care at, 353-54;medical research and education at, 354-55; 1952 dedication of, 341, 353 Pulsipher, John, and Utah War, 50

R

Reiser, Betty Jo, nurse training University of Utah, 294 Richards, Henry P., Iosepa Agricultural and Stock Company stockholder, 322 Roberts, B. H., LDS church official and race, 125

Rosenkilde, Anna (Mama Rose), children’s

nurse, 350, 351

Rush Valley, U. S. Army and Mormon ranchers conflict at, 82-83

S

St. Mark’s Hospital, nursing training, 286; operated by Episcopal Church, 283, 284 Salt Lake City, housing and racial discrimination in, 125-26

Salt Lake Valley, sketch of, 65

Schaafsma, Polly, and Pectol Shields, 370, 371 Scott, Charles A., describes Echo Canyon, 54, 60, 63

Scott, Winfield, Lt. Gen. U. S. Army, issued orders for Utah Expedition, 18, postponement of army deployment, 34-35 Service Star Legion, Utah chapter (committee), and City Creek Canyon, 151 Shaver, Leonidas, territorial judge, death of, 16

Shriners Hospital, administrators and nurses: Bowman, Marie; Holm, Marie; Horne, Maude; Peterson, Mrs. E.; Scharn, Marie; Watson, Fran; Williams, MissAnna Grace, 351-52

Shriners Hospital for Children Intermountain (Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children), 339, 343, 344, 345-46,dedication of, 345, 355, medical treatment at, 352-55,St. Marks Hospital location, 344 Simpson’s Hollow (Wyoming), monument at, 44, 45

Skull Valley, Iosepa Hawaiian colonylocation, 320

Smith, George A., 69 Smith, Joseph F., LDS Church President, and Hawaiian Iosepa settlement, 330, 336 Smith, Lot, and Utah War, 52, 53 Snow, Erastus, Warm Springs description, 214 Spencer, Daniel (uncle HO), 79, Rush Valley rancher, 82-83

Spencer, George Boardman(brother HS), 85, testifies in court, 90 Spencer, Howard O., 80, assaulted 83-84; biography of, 80-81, 87-88; defense attorneys:Brown, Arthur, Rawlins, Joseph L., Sheets, Ben,Young,LeGrand, trial of, 88-92, 89; witnesses for: Brown, William, Clawson, Hiram B., Clawson, Mrs. Ellen S., Herron, Orlando F., Jenkins, Thomas, Shurtliff,Vincent,Young, Mrs. Katherine S., 90

Spring Creek Station, 60 Stayner, Elizabeth (Mrs. Lumen Wadhams), 239

Steptoe, Edward Jenner, Brevet Lt. Col., in Utah, 228, territorial governor nomination,236, 238 Steptoe Expedition,and Mormons, 229-231, 233-234, 238 Stevens, George, and Lucinda Vilate Flake, 113 Stiles, George P., Utah territorial judge, office ransacked, 14 Stout, Hosea, and the Utah War, 43, 57 Stringham, George, arrested for Sergeant Ralph Pike’s murder, 88 Suazo, Alicia Lopez (wife ES), 174 Suazo, Eliud “Pete,” biography of, 170-71, 168, 171, 173, 175, 181, 183; Hispanic statelegislator, 168-69, 177-79; legislation supported by, 179-80, 182-83; political and community activist, 174-76; SpanishSpeaking Organization for Community Integrity and Opportunity (SOCIO) member, 172; U of U Chicano student leader (CSA), 172; Utah Hate Crime bill sponsor, 181-84.

T

Tawatari, Komer (family), 131 Taylor, John, editorially attacks Judge W. W. Drummond, 32-33 Taylor, Joyce, nurse training LDS Hospital, 289

Telluride Power Company, 133, 134-35; electricity for Harriman railroads, 140-41; subsidiary companies: Beaver River Power Company, 138-39, 142, 144, 145, 146, Electric Company, 136, Hercules Power Company, 137, Richfield Light and Power Company, 139, Sevier Light, Power, and Milling Company, 139 Thomas v. Children’s Aid Society of Ogden, 129 Thompson, Jacob, U. S. Interior Secretary, letters from John M. Bernhisel, 28; response to Utah petitions, 14 Threedy, Debora, University of Utah law professor, NAGPRA flawed, 374 Tracy, Albert, Captain, and Utah War, 62 Twiss, Thomas S., Indian agent, critical letter about Brigham Young, 25-26

U

U. S. Army Expedition, at Camp Scott, 13, conflicts within,36-37; incidents with Mormons, 228; route of (DeSilver 1847 map), 38-39; route of, from Sweetwater, 41

Utah (State of Desert), applies for statehood, 12, 14

Utah Boxing Commission (Athletic Commission), and Pete Suazo, 184-85, 186

Utah Hate Crimes Bill, 180-81, 182-84, 186

Utah Power and Light, agreement with L. L. Nunn, 143; controls Telluride assets, 145

Utah territorial legislature;de facto declaration of war, 28; memorials and resolutions, 14, 27-29

Utah territory, government, 8, 11

Utah theocracy, 6-7

Utah War, America’s First Civil War, 21; issues resulting in, 24-25, 36-37; letters critical of Mormons and, 25-26

V

Van Vliet, Stewart, U. S. Army envoy to Utah, 19-20, 48

Virgo, Thomas, Slaterville settler,Morrisite follower, 249, 243, 263

W

Waddoups, T. A., Iosepa colony leader, 323, 324, 330

Wah, Quong, Chinese immigrant, marriage to Dora Harris, 108

Warm Springs, description of, 213, 214, 217; water source for sawmill, 216; 225

Wasatch Springs Plunge (Wasatch Warm Springs Plunge), 223; owned by Salt Lake City, 224

Weber Station, Mormon militia supply post, 58; 59

Weidman, Terri, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 288, 294

Wells, Daniel H., Utah militia Lt. Gen., and Utah War, 16, 45, 54, 227 242

West, Chauncey Walker, death of, 264;Weber County’s presiding bishop, 251, 252

White Sulphur Bathhouse, 224

Wight, Lyman, LDS church apostle, settles in Texas, 68-69

Witt, Bessie, nurse training Holy Cross Hospital, 288

Woodhouse, Albert, founder Dixie (Power) Company, 139-140 Woodruff, Wilford, reacts to Howard O. Spencer attack, 84 Wormington, Hannah Marie, and Pectol Shields, 367 Wright, Barton A., and Pectol Shields, 370-71

Y

Yates, Richard, U. S. Army spy, 46 Yellow Creek, Mormon militia lookout station, 54, 55 Young, Brigham, 4;and army camp followers, 243-44; and Fort Lemhi expedition, 1718; declared marital law, 5, 20-21; ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 10; protests U. S. Army conduct, 241-42 Young, Brigham, Jr. (BY son), 89 Young, Mary Jane Ayers, 234

UTAH STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY FELLOWS

THOMAS G. ALEXANDER JAMES B. ALLEN LEONARD J. ARRINGTON (1917-1999) MAUREEN URSENBACH BEECHER FAWN M. BRODIE (1915-1981) JUANITA BROOKS (1898-1989) OLIVE W. BURT (1894-1981) EUGENE E. CAMPBELL (1915-1986) EVERETT L. COOLEY (1917-2006)

C. GREGORY CRAMPTON (1911-1995) S. GEORGE ELLSWORTH (1916-1997) AUSTIN E. FIFE (1909-1986) PETER L. GOSS LEROY R. HAFEN (1893-1985) JOEL JANETSKI

JESSE D. JENNINGS (1909-1997) A. KARL LARSON (1899-1983) GUSTIVE O. LARSON (1897-1983) BRIGHAM D. MADSEN CAROL CORNWALL MADSEN DEAN L. MAY (1938-2003) DAVID E. MILLER (1909-1978) DALE L. MORGAN (1914-1971) WILLIAM MULDER (1915-2008) FLOYD A. O’NEIL

HELEN Z. PAPANIKOLAS (1917-2004) CHARLES S. PETERSON RICHARD W. SADLER MELVIN T. SMITH WALLACE E. STEGNER (1909-1993) WILLIAM A. WILSON

HONORARY LIFE MEMBERS

DAVID BIGLER

JAY M. HAYMOND FLORENCE S. JACOBSEN STANFORD J. LAYTON WILLIAM P. MACKINNON JOHN S. MCCORMICK MIRIAM B. MURPHY LAMAR PETERSEN RICHARD C. ROBERTS MELVIN T. SMITH MARTHA R. STEWART GARY TOPPING