The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-05-13
HOW IT WINES!

The Tribune wants to know sin what
way the Tribune has eaten any of its own
words"
If 1t will turn to a few back numbers of
its own ugly self, it viii find such doctrine
as this: THE first thing that will be taken
from them the Mormonsl will be the fran
chise. Then they will find themselves at
at the mercy Of such laws as may be pre-
scribed for them. The next at
tack will be On their property. =
This will mean final bankruptcy, not only
for the masses, but for the rich IN the or
ganization." This was written before the
manifesto against polygamy was promul-
gated, but on November / 1880, about q
month after the appearance of the mani
festo, the same paper said: ''Mormons
have no right to participate in public politi-
cal affairs and no real claim to the benefit
OF the land laws
The foregoing seems clear enough Now
notice the following from that sheet on the
Sth day Of the present month
We bag TO ask when it became question of
disfranchisement and non-naturalization. and
through what channels: THE HERALD dates
the time as last autumn. and charges it all uuon
the Tribune. The fact is that a Democratic
judge, after two weeks OF patient Investigation
giving the Mormon church full power TO bring
witnesses and to make the best showing it
could, declaredin effect that the sixth plank in
the platform OF the Democracy to be promul-
gated in 1891 would be bat as sounding brass
and linking cylnbal.- Tribune, hay s. 1891.
The meaning Of this somewhat muddy
paragraph is, that it was Judge ANDERSON,
who once refused but now admits Mormons
TO naturalization, that advocated disfran-
chisement and non-naturaization, and that
it was not the Liberal organ. As usual.
its own words prove how soft and mean q
liar the sheet is.
Then 1t tries to make point on the
Democratic platform as follows:
In their address the new nucleus for the
Democracy insist that there shall be no punish
ment for crimes without conviction. =
Under what status do they place 1900 or more
polygamists in Utah, who, by the EDMUNps
law have been DISTINGUISHED for several vearsq
And If it is right for these men TO he
DISTINGUISHED, how about those who hold to the
same discipline, who have taken the same obli
cations, but who have not had the courage to
live up to their obligations?
But it seems to forget that just six DAVIS
ago it said the same thing itself:
There is no one who is not opposed to the die.
reimbursement of any citizen except for Crime
whereof he shall have been convicted Rnt
this Democratic judge declared that no Mormon
was citizen of the United States in fact and
that it was an infamous thing, under present
conditions, TO give any Mormon applicant for
citizen papers hearing.
1t may not be amiss again to remind the
reader that "this Democratic iudge,, has
since changed his opinions concerning the
Mormons and now admits them to citizen-
ship.
The Liberal organ one day tries to sneak
away from its platform of disfranchise-
ment and robbery; next day it justifies the
acknowledgements of polygamists and
laments that the disfranchisement does
not apply to those who are not, never have
been and never will be polygamists.
AS to the Democratic platform against
Acknowledgement, that platform was
framed upon the issue of whether Mormons
should in the future be disiranchised for
their alleged belief, and not whether the
polygamists should be re-enfranchised.
Ard it is very clumsy trick on the part
OF the Liberal organ to try to make it ap
pear that the Democratic platform was in
tended TO condemn the disfranchisement of
polygamists, while in fact its purpose was
TO prevent the disfranchisement of the
most law abiding portion of the citizens OF
Utah
There will be ample time in the future TO