The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-12-23

IMPROPER DESTINATIONS.

suit.
IMPROPER DESTINATIONS.
The Provo Dispatch asks Tie Herald
how it knows that "Peay's land is not
worth one tenth of the verdict We
know by the testimony of Utah county
men, some of whom testified on that
point in court when the case was tried.
The Dispatch has not yet claimed that
it was worth more. We did not ask
that paper to go by what The Herald
said, but to investigate as diligently as
we have done
The decision of the jury, which the
Dispatch seems to think is beyond
question, is the very subject in dispute
If there is nothing more to advance in
support of the justice of the jury's
verdict, than the decision of the jury
itself, that is reasoning in a circle
with vengeance. The objection is
that the verdict was contrary to the
evidence and that the $500 awarded
was for damages to land that is not
worth more than a tenth of that
amount To say that the jury was abb,
honest and the rest of it. is no an
swer to the objection.
The Dispatch goes out of the straight
way of the controversy to make anoth
er -'insinuation' which is unworthy of
that pauer. 1t has several times called
The Herald to task for making war
fare" upon an upright judge" If the
Dispatch will look over the ground
again and be fair, it will discover that
The Herald has said nothing about
the judge at all Directing to the YER
dict of the jury is not making warfare
upon the judge. It is not even a war
fare upon the jury. Since when has
it become improper for a public jour
nal to criticise the findings of a jury?
If an appeal is the proper thing, as
the Dispatch admits, will not that be
an attack upon the jury on the code
set up by THE Dispatch? We claim the
right to criticise the judge, the jury,
the counsel and all persons engaged
in the case, after the close of the trial,
and do not think that such criticism
as The Herald has made in this case
is warfare or outside the proper
course of the most conservative jour-
nalism. The rights of many worthy
people are involved and both sides are
Ientitled to a hearing.
AS to the unfortunate position, that
is all on the part of the Dispatch,
which first insinuated that The Herald
was influenced in it's remarks by some
stockholder in this paper. which was
totally untrue; next in stating that
we depended "solaly and alone upon
the ex parte statement from a gentle
man profoundly interested in the re-
suit" when we stated that our infor-
nation was obtained from a number
of persons acquainted with the facts;
and finally by accusing us of insult to
the judge when we have not even al
luded to that functionary in the mat
ter until now.
There may be "a number of disin-
terested people in Utah county who
differ very widely from The Herald's
conclusion" That is their privilege.
And The Herald is not 'insulted'' by
their dissent, nor by the opinions of
the Dispatch. nor do we consider
either is any warfare upon us. But
The Herald is as disinterested in the
matter as anybody, and there are
many disinterested people in Utah
county who are ready to make oath
and some of them have done so al
ready, that the land in question is
next thing to worthless, ard that is
the nub Of the whole matter and the
very thing that the Dispatch has not
touched.
The Herald has made no objection
to the opinion which the Dispatch
holds on this question. nor has it i'm
puted improper motives to it in the
discussion. But the Dispatch has gone
out Of its way to impute dishonorable
motives and improper actions to The
Herald. And this has oceasioned sur
prise, as it is more like the tactics we
would expect from a different quarter
than the fair treatment we might ex-
pect from friend.
Our only reason for recurring to this
subject is the incorrect remarks and
insinuations OF the Dispatch. For It'll
has not yet advanced a single argu-
ment to prove that the verdict COM
planned Of was just unless we NAV
the reasoning conclusive that
the verdict was right because the Jury
say it was That of course would be.
an easy way of settling the contro-
versy. But courts are not in the habit
of viewing such questions in that !
light and there is no rule by which the
newspapers or the public should do 50 I
either.
THE HERALD AND DIR. ArNIEcE.