Joseph Smith III's witness of the photograph
& the Library of Congress
The most exciting part of this research comes from the files of the Library of Congress. On the 25th of July, 1879, Joseph Smith III (the prophet's eldest son) deposited two albumen copies of his father’s daguerreotype in the Library of Congress for copyright. The following data was recorded:
[Entry] No. 9810 K. Library of Congress, to wit: Be it Remembered, That on the 25th day of July anno domini 1879, Joseph Smith of Plano Illinois has deposited in this office the title of a Photograph the title or description of which is in the following words, to wit: Joseph Smith (Mormon). The rights whereof he claims as proprietor, in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting Copyrights. 2 copies of the above publication deposited Aug. 6th 1879.
[Entry] No. 9810 K. Library of Congress, to wit: Be it Remembered, That on the 25th day of July anno domini 1879, Joseph Smith of Plano Illinois has deposited in this office the title of a Photograph the title or description of which is in the following words, to wit: Joseph Smith (Mormon). The rights whereof he claims as proprietor, in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting Copyrights. 2 copies of the above publication deposited Aug. 6th 1879.
Joseph III had a Patent Attorney named E. Thurston or Thorton, of 319 Main Street, witness the action. According to the law, in order to copyright
something, a copy of it had to be placed on file in Washington DC.
This served as proof to the nation of the copyright. The rules were simple and anyone could copyright nearly anything so long as they could
deposit proof of the item. Proof meant a copy of the item as near the original as possible. This provided no problem for books, as a copy of the book could be deposited as proof; however, it created a bit of a problem for photographs. In order to deposit a photograph, a copy had to be made. This was difficult during the daguerreotype years, but when Joseph III undertook his venture, a new process, the albumen print was well under way. The albumen process was the forerunner to modern photography. An image could be captured on a negative, enlarged, and reproduced many times. In order to secure the daguerreotype, Joseph III needed the services of William Carson. Carson was an albumen-photographer. He reproduced the daguerreotype to albumen paper for copyright. It was one of these albumen prints that caught the eye of the authors. This is the photograph herein referred to as the JS Photograph for purpose of clarity. (For a comprehensive discussion of Joseph III’s motives for copyrighting it see: Appendix A — The Need to Own the Prophet’s Memory, on a following webpage.)
The importance of this discovery cannot be understated. This image alone fulfills all of the requirements needed to be the Foster daguerreotype. The historical evidence thus far presented, coupled with the expert testimony that follows, verify that this image is exactly what Joseph Smith III said it was — a photograph of his father — Joseph Smith Jr.
something, a copy of it had to be placed on file in Washington DC.
This served as proof to the nation of the copyright. The rules were simple and anyone could copyright nearly anything so long as they could
deposit proof of the item. Proof meant a copy of the item as near the original as possible. This provided no problem for books, as a copy of the book could be deposited as proof; however, it created a bit of a problem for photographs. In order to deposit a photograph, a copy had to be made. This was difficult during the daguerreotype years, but when Joseph III undertook his venture, a new process, the albumen print was well under way. The albumen process was the forerunner to modern photography. An image could be captured on a negative, enlarged, and reproduced many times. In order to secure the daguerreotype, Joseph III needed the services of William Carson. Carson was an albumen-photographer. He reproduced the daguerreotype to albumen paper for copyright. It was one of these albumen prints that caught the eye of the authors. This is the photograph herein referred to as the JS Photograph for purpose of clarity. (For a comprehensive discussion of Joseph III’s motives for copyrighting it see: Appendix A — The Need to Own the Prophet’s Memory, on a following webpage.)
The importance of this discovery cannot be understated. This image alone fulfills all of the requirements needed to be the Foster daguerreotype. The historical evidence thus far presented, coupled with the expert testimony that follows, verify that this image is exactly what Joseph Smith III said it was — a photograph of his father — Joseph Smith Jr.
Significant Facts Thus Far
The print copyrighted by Joseph Smith III in 1879 is unique for several reasons:
First: It was in the possession of Joseph Smith III, the Prophet’s son.
Second: It is the only image claimed by Joseph III to be a photograph.
Third: It is the only image of the Prophet deemed important enough by his family to secure under copyright.
Fourth: It contains all of the similarities found in images claiming to be copied from the daguerreotype. (see Fig. 6)
The print copyrighted by Joseph Smith III in 1879 is unique for several reasons:
First: It was in the possession of Joseph Smith III, the Prophet’s son.
Second: It is the only image claimed by Joseph III to be a photograph.
Third: It is the only image of the Prophet deemed important enough by his family to secure under copyright.
Fourth: It contains all of the similarities found in images claiming to be copied from the daguerreotype. (see Fig. 6)
Charles Carter's Witness of the Photograph
Six years after Joseph III secured the copyright, Charles Carter, a photographer living in Salt Lake City, stated that he had a copy of the daguerreotype given to him by Joseph Smith. On the 18th of August, 1885, this announcement appeared in the Deseret News: “C.W. Carter, photographer, of this city, has in his possession a daguerreotype portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith, taken in Nauvoo...” One month later he would announce that it was: “copied from the original daguerreotype.” Carter’s testimony that he had a copy of this image validates the existence of the daguerreotype. Carter had a few drawings made from it which he sold and later copyrighted under this own name. Carter’s drawings are important because they give evidence of what the subject (Joseph Smith Jr.) in the original daguerreotype looked like. (see Fig. 7) (The historical details surrounding Carter’s acquisition have many ramifications. A comprehensive discussion of Carter may be found in: Appendix B:--The Carter Confusion, webpage.)
Another important clue to the visual appearance of the subject in Foster’s daguerreotype comes from a letter written by Joseph III in response to a new painting exhibit by Louis Ramsey.
Lewis Ramsey & The Joseph Smith III Letter authenticating the photograph
Sometime in 1910, Louis Ramsey finished a painting of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (see Fig. 8) The Church had never really had a great portrait painter in its ranks, so Ramsey was something of a celebrity. He had studied art on the east coast and for a “Mormon boy from Utah”, he showed promise. Previous artists, like John Hafen and Dan Weggeland, though talented, were still considered folk artists. Louis Ramsey was a new breed, the start of “Mormon excellence in art.” His portrait of the Prophet was hailed as a masterpiece and to this day hangs in the Salt Lake Temple. The Salt Lake Tribune ran the following story announcing its completion:
The above [referring to the painting] is a reproduction of a life-sized portrait of Joseph Smith, the organizer and first president of the Mormon Church. It was finished Wednesday in the studio of Lewis Ramsey in the Templeton building and will be sure to attract much attention among artists and lovers of art. It is the first portrait ever made of the subject in which a human touch is given, the likenesses that have heretofore been made being entirely at variance with the present study. No authentic pictures are in existence of Joseph Smith and the artist had to work out his idea from old prints, the death mask and such other material procurable. Critics of this generation cannot say as to the likeness, but from the artistic standpoint the portrait is a genuine surprise, and that it will be accepted as genuine art goes without saying and the picture, which will be exhibited next week, will cause great interest among those who can remember the features of Joseph Smith, who was killed in 1844. Mr. Ramsey is a Payson boy and has studied in the east and abroad.
This news article, with a cut of Ramsey’s painting, was given to Joseph Smith III at his home in Independence, Missouri. When he read Ramsey’s statement: “No authentic pictures are in existence of Joseph Smith,” he wrote a response to the Salt Lake Tribune. (This is the article referred to twice in previous sections. It will now be given in its entirety.)
Independence, Mo., March 10, 1910.
Publishers Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah - Gentlemen: I notice in your issue of Saturday morning, March 5, 1910, a copy of which was handed to me by a neighbor, a cut purporting to represent a life-sized portrait of my father, Joseph Smith, painted by a Utah Artist. I do not regret to see the picture, but I do regret to know that all the reverence said to be held by the people of Utah toward Joseph Smith, the first president of the church, they know so little about the appearance of the man. I regret the statement that is made, that there is no authentic picture of my father in existence, for this is a mistake. If your artist, Mr. Ramsey, should ever visit the capitol of Iowa, he will find a duplicate oil painting of Joseph Smith in one of the halls, placed there by myself and my son, at the request of Mr. Charles Aldredge, then curator of the historical society.
There is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son. Frederick M. Smith, at Independence, Mo., painted by the same artist, that painted one of my uncle, Hyrum Smith, which has formed a basis of pictures of him since his family went to Utah. It fortunately happens to us that this portrait, painted in 1843, is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession, taken the same year, I think, by an artist by the name of Lucian Foster.
The picture in The Tribune looks like it had been made up of a composite of superimposed photograph, creating an ideal face. It represents him as wearing a ring on his right hand. The only ring he ever wore was worn on his left land. The picture represents a curly-headed man, but my father’s hair was not curly. It was quite light in color and altogether the picture fails to essentially represent the man.
That Mr. Ramsey has done well from the material which he had to work with, I can believe, but the expression about the lower part of the face, taken from the death mask, which I saw reproduced in Ogden, executed by one Brown, several years ago, gives too full prominence to the lips and chin.
It is a pleasure to think, however, that the remark made by you under the cut, that the artist had given a human touch to the picture, may be true. The recollections of the man so far as Utah is concerned had been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures. I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to.
Yours truly, Joseph Smith [III]
This letter has caused undue confusion. Many readers interpret it to mean that no daguerreotype exists because Joseph III did not send it to the Tribune — but this is not the argument. Joseph III is not arguing whether there is a daguerreotype or not, but which painting, Ramsey’s or the one in his possession, is truer to his father’s likeness. He offers his painting as the closest work of art, proof being that it “is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession.”
While the point is so simple, the confusion continues to this day. Recently, [early 1990s] we spoke with a prominent Mormon History senior archivist who stated that the letter meant that the daguerreotype spoken of is a daguerreotype of the painting. We responded that this would be impossible and totally illogical. If Smith’s daguerreotype was a reproduction of his painting, it would make his argument unsound. He would literally be saying: “I know that my painting looks more like my father than your painting because I have a photograph of my painting to prove it.” In this case, anyone would question Smith’s intelligence. Luckily this is not what he is saying, rather, he is pointing out that his painting looks more like his father than Ramsey’s portrait does, and anyone that does not believe him can compare his father’s photograph to each portrait for himself. (see Fig. 9) This is an important clue to Foster’s daguerreotype. The daguerreotype of Joseph Smith Jr., in the possession of this son closely resembled Joseph III’s painting. We decided an investigation into the history of art in America would be of benefit. (For more on Joseph III’s letter see: “A Comparison with the Death Mask” webpage from the MENU above.)
The above [referring to the painting] is a reproduction of a life-sized portrait of Joseph Smith, the organizer and first president of the Mormon Church. It was finished Wednesday in the studio of Lewis Ramsey in the Templeton building and will be sure to attract much attention among artists and lovers of art. It is the first portrait ever made of the subject in which a human touch is given, the likenesses that have heretofore been made being entirely at variance with the present study. No authentic pictures are in existence of Joseph Smith and the artist had to work out his idea from old prints, the death mask and such other material procurable. Critics of this generation cannot say as to the likeness, but from the artistic standpoint the portrait is a genuine surprise, and that it will be accepted as genuine art goes without saying and the picture, which will be exhibited next week, will cause great interest among those who can remember the features of Joseph Smith, who was killed in 1844. Mr. Ramsey is a Payson boy and has studied in the east and abroad.
This news article, with a cut of Ramsey’s painting, was given to Joseph Smith III at his home in Independence, Missouri. When he read Ramsey’s statement: “No authentic pictures are in existence of Joseph Smith,” he wrote a response to the Salt Lake Tribune. (This is the article referred to twice in previous sections. It will now be given in its entirety.)
Independence, Mo., March 10, 1910.
Publishers Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, Utah - Gentlemen: I notice in your issue of Saturday morning, March 5, 1910, a copy of which was handed to me by a neighbor, a cut purporting to represent a life-sized portrait of my father, Joseph Smith, painted by a Utah Artist. I do not regret to see the picture, but I do regret to know that all the reverence said to be held by the people of Utah toward Joseph Smith, the first president of the church, they know so little about the appearance of the man. I regret the statement that is made, that there is no authentic picture of my father in existence, for this is a mistake. If your artist, Mr. Ramsey, should ever visit the capitol of Iowa, he will find a duplicate oil painting of Joseph Smith in one of the halls, placed there by myself and my son, at the request of Mr. Charles Aldredge, then curator of the historical society.
There is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son. Frederick M. Smith, at Independence, Mo., painted by the same artist, that painted one of my uncle, Hyrum Smith, which has formed a basis of pictures of him since his family went to Utah. It fortunately happens to us that this portrait, painted in 1843, is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession, taken the same year, I think, by an artist by the name of Lucian Foster.
The picture in The Tribune looks like it had been made up of a composite of superimposed photograph, creating an ideal face. It represents him as wearing a ring on his right hand. The only ring he ever wore was worn on his left land. The picture represents a curly-headed man, but my father’s hair was not curly. It was quite light in color and altogether the picture fails to essentially represent the man.
That Mr. Ramsey has done well from the material which he had to work with, I can believe, but the expression about the lower part of the face, taken from the death mask, which I saw reproduced in Ogden, executed by one Brown, several years ago, gives too full prominence to the lips and chin.
It is a pleasure to think, however, that the remark made by you under the cut, that the artist had given a human touch to the picture, may be true. The recollections of the man so far as Utah is concerned had been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures. I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to.
Yours truly, Joseph Smith [III]
This letter has caused undue confusion. Many readers interpret it to mean that no daguerreotype exists because Joseph III did not send it to the Tribune — but this is not the argument. Joseph III is not arguing whether there is a daguerreotype or not, but which painting, Ramsey’s or the one in his possession, is truer to his father’s likeness. He offers his painting as the closest work of art, proof being that it “is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession.”
While the point is so simple, the confusion continues to this day. Recently, [early 1990s] we spoke with a prominent Mormon History senior archivist who stated that the letter meant that the daguerreotype spoken of is a daguerreotype of the painting. We responded that this would be impossible and totally illogical. If Smith’s daguerreotype was a reproduction of his painting, it would make his argument unsound. He would literally be saying: “I know that my painting looks more like my father than your painting because I have a photograph of my painting to prove it.” In this case, anyone would question Smith’s intelligence. Luckily this is not what he is saying, rather, he is pointing out that his painting looks more like his father than Ramsey’s portrait does, and anyone that does not believe him can compare his father’s photograph to each portrait for himself. (see Fig. 9) This is an important clue to Foster’s daguerreotype. The daguerreotype of Joseph Smith Jr., in the possession of this son closely resembled Joseph III’s painting. We decided an investigation into the history of art in America would be of benefit. (For more on Joseph III’s letter see: “A Comparison with the Death Mask” webpage from the MENU above.)
The Question
There are ONLY 2 possibilities...........
It occurred early on in our investigation that only two possible conclusions could be made. Either the image Joseph Smith III copyrighted was a reproduction of some art-work or it was, in fact, a photograph of a real man. If it was a photograph of a man, then it was a photograph of the Prophet. We have already shown the historical probability of a photograph being taken and the definitive statements from the Prophet’s son that one was. We felt that the opinions of portrait painters, professional photographers, and those familiar with art and photographic history would be valuable in answering the question posed.
There are ONLY 2 possibilities...........
It occurred early on in our investigation that only two possible conclusions could be made. Either the image Joseph Smith III copyrighted was a reproduction of some art-work or it was, in fact, a photograph of a real man. If it was a photograph of a man, then it was a photograph of the Prophet. We have already shown the historical probability of a photograph being taken and the definitive statements from the Prophet’s son that one was. We felt that the opinions of portrait painters, professional photographers, and those familiar with art and photographic history would be valuable in answering the question posed.
