Tuesday, July 1st.

At the House. The usual excitement noticeable on such occasions – the eve. of adjournment. The Senate amended the House Res. of adjournment to 5 p.m. to-day. The House concurred. A Chief Justice name sent in by Hayes to the Senate John Q. Hunter of Mo.

Started at 7.40 p.m. Very hot. A number of Members of both Houses were on the train.

Wednesday, July 2.

Breakfasted at Pittsburgh.

Very hot day. Dined at Crestline.

Thursday, July 3.

Reached Chicago at about 6 a.m. As to-morrow is a holiday I telegraphed Sup’t. Clark of the U. P. R.R. that in the event of his office being closed I should feel obliged if he would have a Pass left for me at the Ticket Office. Hot day. Unpleasant traveling. Storm in the evening before we crossed the Mississippi at Burlington. Heavy rain, vivid lightning. Had the effect to cool the atmosphere.

Friday, 4th

Suffered from pain in my stomach in the night. Had to get up and take wormwood, which gave me relief. Reached Council Bluffs on time. Crossed to Omaha on dummy train. Found my Pass at the Ticket Office. Senators Booth of Cal and Slater of Oregon and Hon E. K. Valentine of Neb. join the train here. The latter stopped at Fremont. Train crowded. Not feeling very well. Costive. Storm sprung up in evening. Cooler in consequence. Passed a pleasant night.

Saturday, July 5

Many celebrations on the Road of yesterday. Morning cool and pleasant. Day grew hotter. Had considerable conversation with a Mr. Sherwood who was going out to Arizona as a mining expert. Met the youngest son of Bro. & Sis. Ritter at Cheyenne where he is in a drug store.

Cool night. Delightful morning. The mountain air is fine and in striking contrast with that which we have had. Breakfasted at Green River where I met Isaac Jennings, son of Bro. W^m Jennings, who had come here to deliver [blank] head of stock to Mr. [blank] Stuart of Council Bluffs. The sun’s rays became hot as the day advanced.

At 2 p.m. to-day we went to Court to hear Judge Boreman’s decision upon the Contempt case. President Taylor, and Bro’s. Brigham Young, Albert Carrington, myself and other brethren were present. The Court Room was <well> filled. The decision was full of lies and misstatements (See the Decision) and we were all sentenced (that is, Pres. Taylor and the Executors) to imprisonment until we complied with the Order of the Court. In our case we were required to turn over $142, [blank] to the Receivers, money which the Court said we had wastefully and without authority expended. Pres. Taylor was required to turn over all the personalty we had paid him. The Plaintiff’s attorneys were to make out the Warrant of commitment and we were to be present to-morrow at 10 a.m. in

Court.

My wife Elizabeth and Mary Alice, David, Emily & Sylvester and her help went up with her Sister Emily to Haights Grove.

Efforts were being made by our attorneys to get us relieved from imprisonment by giving bonds. Sutherland & M^cBride and Tilford and Hogan, the Plaintiff’s lawyers, are willing to take a bond from us of $150,000, the condition of which is that if at the final trial and decision of the case that amount or any less amount be adjudged against us, we shall pay it. Our attorneys urge us to give this bond and avoid going to prison. Their arguments are plausible. They almost prove that nothing can be gained by doing so; but that our better course is to purge ourselves from contempt. Bro. Carrington is convinced by their arguments and is in favor of our giving these bonds. To my mind it is as plain as the light of day that I shall not ask any of my brethren to go on this bond. I shall go to prison rather than do this. We have already given bonds as Executors of $100,000 each. All that we have in the world is pledged on those bonds. If we give a new bond of $150,000 we drag more of our brethren into trouble should the Courts decide against us. In that event we should be stripped ourselves and jeopardize them. But it is said there is no danger of this. Then why do they press for this Bond? Why not rest content with the Bonds we have already given? The Trustee-in-Trust (Pres. Taylor) can indemnify those who go on his bond, for he has the property in his hands with which to do it and it is better for him to give this bond than to turn over the property they demand. But ours is a different position. We have paid out the property they demand of us. We have turned over all the property remaining in our hands. We have nothing belonging to the Estate left. When the Court decided that we should turn over the additional amount of $142, it required us to do an impossible thing. This was virtually prejudging the case, and requiring from us, before trial, payments as though the case was finally decided. The position I take is this: If the Church would promise to indemnify our bondsmen, in view of the fact that it was our act in stepping into the gap and transfering to it the property it now had with which to defend itself, and for which we were now being pressed, or if there were a spontaneous movement on the part of the Saints to furnish us bonds, the question then would arise: Is it the better course to give bonds? There may be a trap in requiring us to give this new bond. The most of the plaintiffs in this suit are upon Bro. Brigham Young’s bond, together with nearly all the heirs. If we give this new bond their attorneys, should the decision go against us, could elect to take our new bondsmen <sureties> in preference to our old ones and thus relieve the plaintiffs and their secret sympathizers among the heirs from all responsibility. This I feel determined not to do.