The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-09-11
A FINAL ANSWER.


One week ago last Friday the SUI
preme court appointed Colonel John
R. Winder to succeed Mr. Henry
Lawrence as receiver of the church
property. That evening Judge S. A.
Merritt had a conversation with one OF
the editors of this paper, the substance
of which appeared the next morning
in The Herald. 1t was to the effect
that the manager of the Tribune had
lenquired Of the Chief Justice why the
change had been made in the receiver
ship, and that the Chief Justice had
replied that he considered it a piece of
gall for him to ask such a question.
Not a word of protest because of
this statement reached any person con-
nected with the editorial or business
departments of this paper prior to the
succeeding Friday. On Wednesday we
received from an adjoining town a
letter in which it was stated that Mr..
Lannan would not deny he had held a
conversation with Judge Merritt on
the subject of the removal of Mr..
Lawrence as receiver, and it was
further intimated that the converse
ton had been held in the supreme
court library The tenor of the letter
indicated that the writer based his
statements upon information not con-
tanned in the correspondence. Accom-
panying this correspondence was the
letter of distinguished and reputable
gentleman who said he would "vouch
for the truth of the statement as to
Lannan" No denial or protest having
been heard from any source by any
person connected with the editorial or
business departments of the paper that
the first statement was wrong, we pub
lished the communication on Thursday
morning.
Friday morning came and the Tri-
bune had entered no protest. Friday
afternoon the chief justice informed
the manager of The Herald that it
was not Mr. Lannan who had APP
preached him but a Tribune reporter,
who asked if the judge desired to say
anything concerning the removal OF
Mr.. Lawrence, to which the judge
stated that he replied that he had
nothing to say and thought it was a
piece of cheek or gall to ask him such
a question. The succeeding morning
the Tribune, in a thoroughly character
istic display of blaclguardism against
the editor of this paper calling him a
'liar of liars" and using some other
of its stock pothouse phrases so familiar
to its readers. The same day, Saturday,
Colonel Merritt in conversation with the
- al efo rx-iT
whom he had the conversation eight
days before, stated that there was a
mistake as to the conversation; that Mr..
Lannan had not spoken TO him, but
that it was a Tribune reporter. To
this The Herald writer replied that
certainly to the best of his recolllec-
ton the judge had said it was Mr..
Lannan and that he should be COM
PEELED so to testify if he were ever to
be placed under oath touching what
was then said The judge replied that
if he had used Mr.. Lannan's name he
had certainly made mistake, and done
so by inadvertence.
On Sunday, in reply to the Tribune's
attack, The Herald adj
mitted that there might have been
as to the person who ap-
preached the Chief Justice, and said
that was the one weak point in the
account, but that the substance of
the matter was not changed, because
there was a mistake as to the person
who represented the Tribune.
On Monday came another outpouring
of Tribune billingsgate and editorial
charges against the whole Herald
staff and management, with a repeti-
ton of the allegation that the editor
knew at the time when the item and
the letter were published that they
were false, and further that the letter
had been written by one Of The Herald
staff.
The letter was written by gentle
man of repute and vouched for by an
other whose standing is second to
none of the parties to this controversy.
We know them both and have no doubt
that they had as much reason to be-
lieve that the statements in the let
ter were absolutely correct, as had The
Herald writer to maintain that he had
the Chief Justice correctly.
If it is true, as now appears and as
we admitted on Sunday was probable,
that instead of the manager reporter
of the Tribune made the inquiry and
received the snub, the gist of the mat
ter remains. And there was no. need
as there is no excuse for the low-lived,
virulent and gutter-snipe language
with which the Tribune articles abound
ed and which stamp the writer as I'M
fit to appear in print in any paper that
outside of the vilest sinks of
iniquity. The Herald has published
nothing but what it had good reason
to believe was absolutely correct, and
the error of persons is after all a mat
ter too insignificant for serious dis
pute.