The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-23
THE MISTAKES OF JOSEPH.

| mittee, occupying about two columns
in the Salt Lake Tribune, Hon. Joseph
F. Smith attempts to tone down the
wire edge of his Incorporate address
in the Seventeenth ward, which has oc-
casioned so much surprise and regret
among his most intimate friends
The gentleman commences by stating
that ''bftter sarcasm aa5 ridicule are
| always the strongest weapons of a
weak cause. and then proceeds to
treat those of his friends who have
felt pain and humiliation at his in
defensible utterances. with a dose of
bitter sarcasm and ridicule" because
of their lamentations over his ex-
hihition of bigotry and spleen.
He then takes the babyish position
that he is not any worse than his
,, brother ecclesiast. who made a speech
in which one error of fact (as J. F. S.
views it, was made, and whose speech
was amended" before publication. If
1t is true that his younger brother is
as bad as he, how much better does
that make him?
But the facts may as we'll be made
clear in opposition to his sophisms.
The alleged error in his church broth
er's speech was in speaking of the res
toration Of the church property which
"a Republican Congress" had taken
away. The words as published are "con-
gressional legislation" They were sub
stituted because the gentleman had
been told he was mistaken in saying
that a Republican Congress had done
that.
But was he mistaken? Let us see:
under the provisions of an act of Con-
gress. When was it passed? In 1852
That act of Congress, in addition to
imposing severe penalties against
plural marriage. annulled and repealed
the Utah laws incorporating the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
and provided also:
THAT it shall not be lawful for any
corpora ton or association for religious
or charitable purposes to acquire or
hold real estate in any territory of the
United States during the existence of
the territorial government of a greater
all real estate acquired or held by any
such corporation or association con-
trary to the provisions of this act, shall
be forfeited and escheat to the United
States: Provided, That existing rights
in real estate shall not be impaired by
the provisions of this section.
What was that but Republican leg
islation"? Both houses Of Congress
and the Administration were Repub-
lican. Contrary to stories told about
its not being signed by the Republican
President, it was so signed, and that
stands of record.
The act of February 10, 1887, which
was not signed by the Democratic Pres
ident, contains section on the subject.
but it simply directs the Attorney
General of the United States to insti-
tute proceedings to carry into effect
the law of 1862, which was Republican
legislation. Therefore the gentleman's
good brother was right in his first
statement and was only wrong in lis
tening to his older but rasher Repub-
lican brother.
The so-called Edmunds-Tucker act is
misnomer It originated in the Sen
ate and passed that body. Senator Ed
munds was it's author. AS amended in
the House by the committee Of which
Randolph Tucker was chairman, it was
greatly changed and improved from
the original. We have at hand the bill
as it came from the Senate and as
amended by the House. The bill as it
passed was compromise, made by the
committee of conference Of which Ed
munds was a member present and
Tucker was not.
The feeling of the country at the
time of its passage was furious against
the Mormon people. Wagon loads of
petitions from religious bodies all over
the United States We're dumped upon
Congress. Members were besieged by
their constituents to pass the bill. The
only men almost without an exception
who dared to stand up for the rights
of the Mormon church were Demo-
Gratis. In the House, the forty mem
bers who had the hardwood to openly
vote against the bill were SO Demo-
Gratis and one negro Republican. These
are facts which are established by the
record, and not a condemnation of
opinions and unsupported statements
like those which are grouped and called
facts in the Tribune article by Hon.
Joseph F. Smith.
Now as to some Of those alleged facts
which he says at is useless for any
Democrat to deny" Why useless, since
they are not true? Is it because they
are published over his signature? 1t
is too late for such a plea as that. The
pamphlet bearing his name contains so
many errors which have been fully ex-
ploded that the fact that he says thus
and so does not make them correct or
vouch for their accuracy. That he be-
lieves them himself, we do not dispute.
but that this makes them true is a
palpable absurdity, seeing that he has
made so many mistakes.
ITO begin with it is NOT
TRUE that the Democratic par
ty had pledged statehood in
1886 and violated that pledge
and gave to us the Edrnunds-TuclSer
law in 1897 We challenge Joseph F.
Smith to produce the proofs of his rash
statement. Overtures were made by
leading Democrats to the Mormon
church leaders to agree to the cessation
of plural marriages. as a preliminary to
a movement for Statehood, and those
oveNures were peremptorily declined
and the promise refused. If half what
has been done since, under Harrison's
administration. had been con-
ceded under Cleveland's, nobody IA
miliar with all the facts has we'll
grounded doubt that Utah would have