THE 

RIGHT RELATION 

OF 

CHURCH & STATE

by

Anthony W. Ivins

1926


THE RIGHT RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

In an address given before the Exchange Club, Salt Lake City, Friday, August 
6th, 1926, President Anthony W. Ivins, of the First Presidency of the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having made reference to the religious 
situation in Mexico, the Very Rev. D. G. Hunt, Cathedral of the Madeleine, in 
an open letter, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, made reply to the remarks 
of President Ivins as follows:

VERY REV. D. G. HUNT’S REPLY

President Anthony W. Ivins, Salt Lake City:

Dear President Ivins -- According to the newspapers, you made a speech Friday 
of the past week in which you discussed at some length the present trouble in 
Mexico.  If quoted correctly, in this public statement you implied that the 
blame rests with the Catholic clergy and not with the government.

You do not seem to appreciate that the basis of the trouble in Mexico is a 
bolshevistic attitude on the part of those who rule and their determination 
to crush to earth all those who stand in their way.  You do not seem to 
appreciate that the fundamental difficulty in Mexico is that the government 
leaders are denying to the Catholic citizens of Mexico rights which we all 
recognize as essential to a sound scheme of government.  You and I are 
Americans.  We believe that our federal constitution and our state 
constitutions are just in that they recognize certain inalienable human 
rights.  Among these are the right to own private property, the right to have 
private schools, the right of free speech and press, and the right to worship 
God according to the dictates of one’s conscience.

These are rights for which you and I would fight.  These are rights which are 
claimed by you for your church and which are claimed by me for the church of 
which I am a members.  And, in case these rights are menaced for any church 
in this country, you and I and all other Christians should unite and protest 
against such violations.  How can you close your eyes to the violations of 
these rights in Mexico?  Are not the rights of the Mexicans just as sacred in 
the sight of Almighty God as the rights of we Americans?  Is it not your duty 
and my duty and the duty of all Americans to protest against such outrages 
against justice as are now being perpetrated by the government of Mexico 
against the Catholic church and the Catholic people?

Let me illustrate your logic:  Suppose that the laws of the state, dating 
back to a time of barbarity, provide that every person 60 years of age shall 
be executed.  Suppose that you become president of that state and that you 
promptly proceed to execute all persons 60 years of age.  You are accused of 
inhumanity, cruelty and injustice.  You then plead in your defense, I have no 
desire to execute old people.  I am merely the mechanical instrument of 
enforcing laws made by someone else.  I cannot do a thing to change the laws.  
It breaks my heart to the life of anyone, and I assure the very persons whom 
I am now executing that I love them dearly.  But please do not blame me.  
That is the attitude of the Mexican president, according to you.  Is it 
sincere?

Let me make this clear to you by picturing a possible parallel situation in 
the United States.  Let us suppose a dominant political party becomes 
inspired by a hatred of some particular Christian denomination, which, 
because of circumstances, is incapable of defending itself.  Suppose this 
dominant political party, taking advantage of its great strength, should 
decide to crush, let us say, the church of which you are president.  Let me 
picture for you how the present Mexican laws against the Catholic church 
would appear as laws of this country against the church of the Latter-day 
Saints.

The government has the right to confiscate all L.D.S. churches, with their 
contents.

The government permits Latter-day Saints to use some of their buildings, but 
according to the judgment of an official who may be a Baptist, a Catholic, a 
Jew, or an atheist, and then only so long as the government wishes.

The government has the right to take some of the confiscated L.D.S. churches 
and assign them to other uses or to a national church subsidized by the 
government.

No L.D.S. bishop or priest is permitted to officiate in any church unless 
native born, and the L.D.S. church is unable to train native-born members for 
these offices, being forbidden to have training schools.  (Witness the fact 
that the Mexican government has forbidden the Catholic church to have 
seminaries.)

L.D.S. bishops and priests are forbidden to hold public office, although this 
rule may be violated in favor of other clergymen who are not Latter-day 
Saints.  (Witness the fact that the Catholic priests are forbidden in Mexico 
to hold office, yet the president has a clergyman of a non-Catholic church in 
his cabinet.)

Members of the L.D.S. church are not permitted to hold property which the 
government may suspect can be used for religious purposes, and when the 
government seizes such property the owner has no right to trial by jury if he 
appeals to the courts.

The government claims the right to confiscate all L.D.S. schools.

L.D.S. bishops and priests may not publicly advocate prohibition or anything 
else that involves political action.

L.D.S. papers are forbidden to publish any comments on the laws that impose 
these burdens on their people.

They may not criticize the legislators who are responsible.

The government forbids bishops and priests of the L.D.S. church to officiate 
at funerals of members of that church.

The government claims the right to revise and change the form of public 
worship of the L.D.S. church.

Marriages performed by L.D.S. bishops and priests are not recognized as 
valid.

If you can picture what this would mean to you and the members of your 
church, you can understand what the present laws and the present attitude of 
the government of Mexico mean to the Catholics and the Catholic church in 
that unfortunate country.  If you can picture all this, you will find it 
difficult to say a word in defense of the present government in Mexico.

Very Sincerely,

MONSIGNOR D. G. HUNT

PRESIDENT IVINS ANSWERS MONSIGNOR HUNT

Monsignor D. G. Hunt, Cathedral of the Madeleine, 331 East South Temple 
Street, City.

Dear Monsignor Hunt:

I have received and read with interest your letter of the 7th addressed to me 
and published in part in the Salt Lake Tribune and The Deseret News.  I think 
you for it and the fair and open minded manner in which you refer to the 
remarks made by me before the Exchange Club on Friday, the 6th.

Your letter affords me this opportunity to state clearly my attitude in 
regard to the unfortunate condition which exists in Mexico at the present 
time and which appears to have brought on a conflict between the Calles 
government and the Catholic church, which will be difficult to compose.

Before answering your letter in the order in which you have written it, 
permit me to definite my attitude regarding the proper relationship which 
should exist between the church and the state.  When I use the word church, I 
mean it to apply to the Catholic church, to all Protestant denominations and 
to the church of which I am a member.

The remarks which I made before the Exchange Club were not intended to be a 
defense of the Calles government, nor a criticism of the Catholic church.  
Mexico is a foreign power; it is not the government to which I have pledged 
allegiance or to which I owe obedience, except in so far as my responsibility 
to honor and respect its laws when I may be a temporary resident within its 
confines is concerned.

The greater part of my active life I have devoted to work in Mexico.  I have 
been intimately acquainted with her presidents during that time, have had 
large business transactions with her state departments, have been in the 
homes of the wealthy and have slept in the hovels of her oppressed and down-
trodden peasantry.  I have partaken of their scanty hospitality, always 
cheerfully given; have heard from their own lips and seen with my own eyes 
the tragic story of their unhappy lives.  I know their strong religious 
convictions, their devotion to the principles for which patriots have given 
their lives all down through the ages.  I am alone as I write this letter.  I 
have consulted with no one.  I speak only for myself and assume the entire 
responsibility for what I may say.  I have lying on my desk the story of the 
lives of the Mexican people during the past 400 years as it is told by the 
Abbe Domenech, by Father Las Casas, by Solis, Bernal Diaz and other writers, 
devoted men of your faith, who were witnesses of the things which they 
declare to be truths.  I have the story told by Prescott, Bancroft, Von 
Humboldt, Abbot and others, men among the most reliable that have written on 
the subject.  I also have copies of the current daily press published in the 
City of Mexico which come to me every morning.  I have endeavored to be 
properly informed.

They all tell the same story -- a story of patriotism, courage and self-
sacrifice, unsurpassed by the patriots of our own country, as Mexicans have 
struggled for more than a century to emancipate themselves from the thralldom 
of kingcraft and priestcraft with which they have been bound for more than 
400 years, two forces which have been responsible for more misery, sorrow and 
bloodshed than all others combined.

It is for these people that I plead.  All that I ask is that patience be 
exercised; that they be left to adjust their own internal affairs without 
interference; that reason and justice be applied instead of hatred, malice 
and force.  I plead that the words of the Divine Master, whom both you and I 
profess to follow, be applied:  “Whatsoever ye would that men shall do unto 
you, do ye even so unto them.”  I make this appeal in behalf of the Mexican 
people, in behalf of Catholics and Protestants alike -- may God give them 
freedom founded upon righteousness and justice.

The Proper Relationship Between Church And State

I believe that civil governments are indispensable to the safety, happiness 
and development of mankind.  I believe that God, our Father, who has created 
the earth and placed man upon it, and who has ever had a watchful care over 
his children, has inspired men, from time to time, to establish such systems 
of government as the time and circumstances demanded, in order that the 
definite plan which he has provided for the blessing and ultimate redemption 
of his children may be accomplished.

Civil governments are controlled by laws which are enacted by the people who 
are to be governed by them.  These laws are administered by executors who are 
chosen by the voice of the people.  They are human laws, and must be obeyed 
by all citizens who reside within the confines of the state where they are in 
force.  They control our lives, our liberties, the possessions which we call 
our own.  If we refuse to obey, the state administers the penalties which the 
law provides.  It may take our lives, restrain us in our liberties, or take 
from us our property; our resistance to it is hopeless.  It is human law, and 
compels obedience whether we will or not.

Religion is instituted of God, and men are amenable to him and to him only 
for the exercise of it.  I do not believe that human laws should prescribe 
rules of worship which bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms of 
public or private devotion, except where the exercise of these ceremonies 
infringe upon the rights of others.  I believe that the civil magistrate 
should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but 
never suppress the freedom of the soul.

I do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, 
whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its 
spiritual privileges and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, 
denied.

I do not believe that any religious society should try men on the right of 
property or life, take from them this world’s goods, put them in jeopardy of 
life or limb, or inflict any physical punishment upon them.  They can only 
excommunicate them from their society and withdraw from them the hand of 
fellowship.

The civil magistrate acts in his office under the provisions of human laws, 
which are compulsory.  The officer of the church should act by authority of 
God, whose priesthood he assumes to hold.  This priesthood has no compulsory 
power, but must be maintained by persuasion, by gentleness, by kindness and 
love unfeigned, without hypocrisy and without guile.

I believe civil government, founded upon principles of righteousness and 
justice, indispensable to the orderly existence of society, and that it 
should be perpetuated.

I believe religion indispensable to the perpetuity and stability of the 
state.  The place of the church is to teach and uphold those principles of 
equality, justice, righteousness and morality which the lessons of the past 
teach us are the only secure foundation upon which national existence can be 
perpetuated.

if you and I do not agree on these conclusions, if our opinions differ, can 
we not sit down together, and, by reason and argument, find common ground 
upon which we can stand?  Or will we, we men of the twentieth century, who 
live in the most enlightened and progressive period of the world’s history, 
with the lessons of the past to guide us, and with the Gospel of the Master 
in our hands, continue to cherish the rancor and hatred and bitterness of the 
past, until the world shall again be drenched in human blood?

Answering Your Letter

You say:  “You and I are Americans.  We believe that our federal constitution 
and our state constitutions are just in that they recognize certain 
inalienable rights.  Among these are the right to own private property, the 
right to have private schools, the right of free speech and press, and the 
right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience.  These 
are rights for which you and I would fight.”

Upon this you and I can have no argument.  Yes, we would fight in defense of 
these inherent rights which are so dear to us, but we must not overlook the 
fact that these privileges are guaranteed to us with certain well-defined 
limitations, and that whenever we exercise them in a manner that we infringe 
upon the rights of others the guarantee ceases to be in force.  The right of 
free speech is guaranteed to me, but if I exercise that right to defame you, 
if I utter words of sedition against the government which has conferred this 
right upon me and protects me in the exercise of it, I may be justly silenced 
by the law.

It is my right to possess property, but if I obtain that property by unfair 
means, it may be rightfully taken from me, and restored to its proper owner.  
The freedom of the press is mine, but if I use it to excite sedition, and 
rebellion against the government which has granted this privilege to me, I 
forfeit it and have no just right to complain if it is taken from me.  We are 
entitled to establish and maintain church schools, but if the university of 
Provo advocates that the university established by the state shall be 
abolished, and the church encourages that attitude; if the University of Utah 
is finally abolished, and the church declares that there shall be no 
institutions of learning established in the United States, except those which 
are controlled by it, I am certain that you will agree with me that such 
action would constitute a just reason why the civil law should declare my 
right to conduct church schools forfeited.

After recounting the restrictions placed upon the Catholic church and clergy 
in Mexico, under the existing law, you say:

“If you can picture what all this would mean to you and the members of your 
church, you can understand what the present laws and the present attitudes of 
the government of Mexico means to the Catholics and the Catholic church in 
that unfortunate country.”

I can visualize it, and have nothing to say in defense of it.  The church of 
which I am a member has passed through similar experiences.  Laws have been 
enacted by Congress of the United States prohibiting the practice of certain 
principles held very dear by the church and its members, and against the 
practice of which there was no existent law.  The church was disincorporated, 
all of its property confiscated, its leading priesthood disfranchised, 
families ties were sundered, and men thrown into prison because of their 
adherence to a principle which they believed to be both scriptural and 
proper.

There was no revolt, no effort made to incite the members of the church to 
oppose by other than legal means.  In a dignified manner, the legality of the 
law was contested in the courts, and, when declared to be constitutional, the 
church immediately adjusted itself to be in obedience to the law and has 
religiously honored and obeyed it.  I believe that all questions which may 
arise, where the church and state disagree, should be composed in that way.

You say to me:  “Suppose that the laws of the state, dating back to a time of 
barbarity, provide that every person 60 years of age.  You are accused of 
inhumanity, cruelty and injustice.  You then plead in your defense -- ‘I have 
no desire to execute old people.  I am merely the mechanical instrument of 
enforcing laws made by someone else.  I cannot do a thing to change the laws.  
It breaks my heart to the life of anyone, and I assure the very persons whom 
I am now executing that I love them dearly.  But please do not blame me.’  
That is the attitude of the Mexican president, according to you.  Is it 
sincere?”

If that were the attitude of the Mexican president, according to me, and I 
sustained him in it, I would consider my attitude as absurd as the question 
appears to me.  Such a condition as suggested in your question has never 
existed, never can exist; therefore, no answer to it is necessary.

The Mexican president is not acting under a law which was enacted in a time 
of barbarity, but one which is of recent creation.  Let me present the 
situation by asking you another hypothetical question.  Suppose that I issued 
a decree that all persons who differ from me in religious beliefs should be 
put to death.  Suppose that law is enforced, and thousands of people executed 
under it.  Suppose the law is finally repealed, but I continue to execute it.  
You come to me and protest, and insist that its execution must cease, and I 
urge that it is a law established by infallible authority and shall be 
upheld.  Would you be justified in putting a stop to the execution of 
unbelievers?  Would it be your duty to permit me to go on, or would you 
enforce the law, regardless of my protest?  This is not a question based upon 
either an improbability or impossibility -- it has actually occurred.

What I Said Before the Exchange Club

I began my address by saying that Mexico is reaping the harvest from seed 
sown four hundred years ago, and, in order to justify this statement, I 
reviewed the history of that country, from the time of the conquest until the 
present.  My address was not written, I spoke from my own knowledge, and 
quoted from the writings of the ablest historians who have written on the 
subject.  What I said and quoted is the truth, as near as it is possible for 
me to tell it, without prejudice or favor.  If in repeating those remarks 
here I shall offend the Catholic church, its clergy, or anyone whose 
friendship I highly esteem, I shall greatly regret it.

The Abbe Emanuel Domenech, in his “Mexico as It Is -- The Truth” says:  “My 
principle is that truth injures only him who speaks it.  It is often useful 
to those who hear.  I shall not take pains to invent, but write only the 
truth.”

The Conquest

After the slaughter of two hundred thousand Mexicans, as near as I am able to 
compute the figures given, when Hernan Cortez, with his small army of 
Spaniards and large number of Indian allies, effected the conquest of the 
City of Mexico in May, 1520, he found himself in possession of the capital 
city of the Aztec empire, which, it is estimated, ruled over thirty millions 
of people.  Not nomadic, wandering tribes, but a people living in great 
cities, which they had builded, with palaces, temples, and beautiful homes -- 
a civilization which many historians tell us was in some respects superior to 
that of Spain.  Gold and silver, precious stones and pearls existed in 
quantities beyond the dreams of the most rapacious conquistador.

Pope Alexander VI pledged to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain every isle, 
continent and sea where they should plant their flag in the western 
hemisphere.  Julius II, his successor, confirmed these grants, and added all 
of the beneficies, dignities and offices claimed by the Holy See.  The king 
of Spain thus became the supreme head of both the church and state, thus 
making both the church and state responsible for the acts of their respective 
representatives in the conquest and government of the new world.

After the conquest of the Aztec empire, there began a campaign of murder, 
rapine, and destruction unequaled in the history of the modern world.  
Michael Chevalier, writing of the conquest of Mexico, says:  “it was a 
crusade, a holy war against the infidels.  To compel them to confess the 
faith was an incomparable merit.  In such a case it was little matter that 
they gave unbridled license to their passions, that they were licentious, 
covetous and bathed themselves in blood.  Every sin would be atoned by so 
good a work.”

In all of this the cross went before the conquistador.  The battle cry was 
the Holy Virgin and the saints, every soldier considered himself an apostle 
whose duty it was to first conquer the heathen, and after the battle was over 
baptized those who were left alive.  When a city was taken, the conquerors 
rushed to the idolatrous temples, and, appropriating the gold with which they 
were adorned, threw down the heathen idols and raising the image of the Holy 
Virgin or saints in their places, commanded the astonished natives to bow 
down and worship them, declaring that these were their gods, and that they 
were more powerful than the gods of Tenochtitlan.  The people did so and were 
declared to be Christians.

Peter of Ghent, a Flemish monk, writing from Mexico in 1529, says that he and 
another missionary had converted 200,000 Mexicans, their ordinary day’s work 
being from 10,000 to 20,000 souls.

Father Hunt, do you believe that people who are converted under these 
circumstances can possibly have proper understanding of Christianity?

Von Humboldt says:  “The introduction of the Romish religion had no other 
effect on the Mexican’s than to substitute new ceremonies and symbols for the 
rites of a sanguinary worship.  I have seen them, masked and adorned with 
tinkling bells, perform savage dances around the altar, while a monk of St. 
Francis elevated the Host.”

The Abbe Emmanuel Domenech says, “The Mexican is not a Catholic -- he is 
simply a Christian because he has been baptized.  I say that Mexico is not a 
Catholic country.”  This man was a Catholic priest, and chaplain and 
spiritual adviser to the Emperor Maximilian and the expeditionary forces sent 
by France to establish him on the throne of a Catholic empire which they 
plotted to create in Mexico.

The value of the loot gathered by the conquerors of Mexico, in gold, silver, 
gems and cloth of gold, will never be known.  It made Spain the wealthiest 
nation of her time, and enriched the church until it was declared to have 
been the most magnificent and impressive ecclesiastical establishment in the 
world.

The personal property of the Mexicans exhausted, the conquerors turned for 
profit to the people themselves.  Great numbers were carried to the old 
world, where they were sold into slavery.  Repartamentos were made by which 
lands, and the people upon them were divided among the Spaniards.

In vain Father Las Casas and other holy men cried out against these abuses; 
in vain they appealed to the king of Spain and to the head of the church in 
behalf of these hapless people.  “No words can depict the miseries of these 
hapless races.  Burning, torturing, mutilating and branding followed revolt.  
Starvation, exhaustion, blows were their lot in time of peace.  Households 
were rendered desolate, wives were torn from husbands, daughters from 
parents, to be distributed among soldiers and sailors, while the children 
were put to work in the gold washings, and there perished by thousands.”  Las 
Casas declares that in 15 years from four to five millions of people perished 
in Guatemala alone, while the bishop of Chiapa says that fifteen millions 
were exterminated in his time.

Do you wonder that Guatamoctzin, the heroic young emperor of Mexico at the 
time of the final conquest, the last to occupy the throne of Montezuma, said 
to Cortez, who had ordered him stretched over burning coals, in order to 
compel him to reveal state secrets and accept Christianity:  “As for me and 
mine, we elect to die.  I will neither trust the men who commit nor the God 
who permits, such atrocities.”

The Struggle for Liberty

The circumstances which led to the declaration of Mexican independence were 
similar to those which existed in the colonies at the time of the Declaration 
of Independence of the United States of America.

Spain had prohibited the production of certain articles in Mexico which could 
be produced in the mother country.  Miguel Hidalgo y Costillo, a Catholic 
priest at the town of Dolores, had planted a vineyard, and was engaged in an 
endeavor to make the production of silk in the new world a success.  Under 
royal decree his vineyard and silk worms were destroyed.  On September 10, 
1810, at midnight, he rang his chapel bell and at the signal a large number 
of people assembled.  Hidalgo declared Mexico an independent nation and 
appealed to those assembled to join him and fight for freedom.

One hundred thousand Indians rallied to his standard, and for a short time 
were successful, but they were without discipline, without arms, and were no 
match for the army of trained Spanish soldiers which marched against them.  
They were excommunicated by the church, hunted down by the soldiery, until 
Hidalgo was finally betrayed by Bustamente and executed at the city of 
Chihuahua, the first martyr for the liberties of Mexico.  Hidalgo was dead, 
but the torch of liberty which he had lighted could not be extinguished.  Men 
like Morelos, Nicholas bravo, Allende, Guerrero and other patriots kept up 
the fight against what appeared to be insurmountable obstacles until the 
independence of Mexico was achieved.

Myer in his “Political History of Mexico” says:

“After the Spaniards again obtained temporary mastery under General Calleja, 
the annals of the time teem with accounts of sanguinary vengeance which was 
wreaked by that inhuman monster upon the victims who fell within his grasp.

“For this distinguished service Calleja was created marshal, decorated with 
the grand cross of the Order of Charles III, and appointed viceroy.”

From this time there was constant conflict between the Clerical party and the 
Republicans, and the government periodically changed from one of these 
parties to the other.  Abbott, in his “Mexico and the United States,” says:

“in 1826 the legislature of the state of Oajaca established the Institute of 
Arts and Sciences, at which school a course in law was to be given.  A 
Catholic seminary had already been established at Oajaca, and the Clerical 
party immediately declared war upon the institute, denouncing it as a focus 
of revolution and heresy.  The institute was finally abolished, but not until 
it had given to Mexico Benito Juarez, Miquel Mendez, both pure-blooded 
Indians, and others whose names will live in the hearts of the Mexican people 
as long as those of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln live in the hearts of 
loyal citizens of the United States.”

To follow the history of the struggle of the Mexican people for liberty from 
this time until Juarez and his compatriot, Porfirio Diaz, would be 
interesting and enlightening, but my letter is already long.  It is 
sufficient to say that repeatedly, while in control of the government the 
Clerical party endeavored to induce a foreign prince to come to Mexico and 
assume the throne and establish a Catholic empire, and that with the coming 
of Maximilian their purpose appeared to have been accomplished, but the 
Republicans, under Juarez, were finally victorious, Maximilian was executed, 
and the last hope of the Clerical party to establish a Catholic empire 
vanished.

The fact that Mexico today, after 400 years of government, has a population 
of only about 15,000,000 of people, notwithstanding its immense natural 
resources and that millions of people have gone to that country from the old 
world, is indisputable evidence that something has been wrong with her system 
of government.

Father Hunt, this is not a defense of the present Mexican government, it is 
not an arraignment of the Catholic church.  I do not in any degree hold the 
present head of the Catholic church, her cardinals, her bishops or her 
clergy, responsible for the acts of their predecessors.  I absolve them from 
all responsibility for the acts to which I have referred; but you know that 
people with these tragedies of the past before them, people who are yet 
struggling for real civilization and religious liberty, are entitled to 
sympathy, even if in some instances they go to extremes.  While neither you 
nor I should be held responsible for the acts of our predecessors, we both 
know that the lessons of the past are the mile-posts which are placed along 
the way, and that if we follow the straight path which has led other people 
into safe harbors we are secure; if we walk in other than the path marked out 
by our Lord and Master, we are in danger.

In conclusion, I desire to make plain this one point:  I believe in the 
indispensable necessity of the existence of constitutional law to govern us 
in temporal affairs.  I sustain the civil law of my country and its 
constitution against all people who seek to destroy it, be they foreign or 
domestic, be they emperors, kings, rulers or magistrates.  Whether they be 
popes, cardinals, bishops, priests or laymen; whether they be in my own 
church or yours, they must not attack these God-given institutions upon which 
our government rests, and if I properly understand the character of the men 
who make up the membership of the church of which I am a member, they defend 
these principles of civil government to the last man.  With respect and 
friendship I remain, sincerely yours.

A. W. IVINS,
Salt Lake, August 14, 1926.