The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-09
IN IT'S oWN TRAP.


1t is good fun to watch the antics OF
our morning contemporary over the
Cleveland amnesty. The Herald has ex-
planned repeatedly the essential differ
ence between the Cleveland full relief
to various classes of offenders, and the
| meagre relief to one class only by the
Harrison abortion. Yet the Tribune
| pretends that it has called for such
explanation in vain. That is done to
deceive those of its readers who do not
take The Herald, into the notion that
there is no answer to the Tribune s
special pleadings and vain repetitions.
But while beating the air with its
loud asseverations that there is no diff
ference between the two proclamations,
it has the temerity to place them side
by side in its columns, emitting, how
ever, one provision of the Cleveland
amnesty. Any one who can read and
think, and will compare them without
taking notice OF the Tribune's tergiver-
sations, viii see the radical difference
between the two documents, and will
ness, or feel contempt at its efforts to
blind the eyes of the unreflecting, or
laugh with us over its journalistic gym
nastics. .
If, as the Tribune says, there are
some learned lawyers who hold that
everything covered by Mr.. Cleveland
was covered by Mr.. Harrison we are
70, rTyl,o
either do not understand plain English
or they are using the tactics of a GER
tain class Of special pleaders to explain
away the evident and direct significa-
ton of simple words.
The Tribune pretends to quote what
The Herald said two years ago. The
Herald has not changed its views as
to the scope and limit of the powers Of
the President. We do not now claim
that the President of tn United States
can annul a law. or change it's pro-
visions relating to the franchise The
opinions of eminent lawyers published
by the Democratic party November 1,
1892, stand today unrefuted If the
Tribune cannot see that, it is because
Of mental blindness or party bias. It
also raises a false issue in its desperate
attempt to make out that the Cleve-
land amnesty and the Harrison procla-
nation are identical in effect
In illustration of the difference be-
tween them, we will cite a recent case
in the Fourth district court 1t was
that of the United States VS.. J. Kearl,
charged with adultery committed in
1891. Upon his trial he showed that
the act was committed with a woman
of the class commonly denominated a
plural wife; that he was a member of
the Mormon church, and, further that
upon the issuance of President Har-
rison's proclamation the relation
ceased. Judge, Smith thereupon held
that such facts, under the proclama-
ton Of President Cleveland, constituted
a bar to the prosecution.
Now, the fact that under Harrisons
proclamation the defndant was not and
could not have been relieved of the con-
of his offense, is proof of the
essential difference between the two
documents. The Harrison amnesty
would not have, covered his case at all,
as the offense was charged as having
been committed since November /. 1890.
and, further, that amnesty only COW
cred unlawful cohabitation,' differ
ent offense to that for which he was
indicted
The Tribune announces that Judge
Zane says everything covered by Mr..
Cleveland was covered by Mr.. Har-
rison." We don't take the word of the
Tribune for any man and particularly
against what he said on another occa-
sion. AS to that. we will quote its own
words on January II, 1898:
''By the terms of the IHarrisonl am
nesty, as telegraphed, his honor be-
lieves that it applies only to unlawful
cases, but not to men
who have been convicted of polygamy
since the passage Of the Edmunds-
Tucker acts
Judge Zane at that time modified the
jurors oath to conform to his UNDER
Of the scope of the Harrison
amnesty. but retained in it the affirma-
ton as to not having been convicted of
bigan1y, polygamy, adultery, etc, show |
iS bHdt Tie fldTFISOll amnesty Ql0 not /
reach those offenses. Therefore we do |
not believe the Tribune tells the truth |
N what it says Judge Zane states now. |
because it is a blank contradiction of |
what he said then.
The truth is, the Cleveland amnesty
S so broad and liberal and far-reach-
ng that it covers all the President could
legally touch, but the Tribune, in its
snaly venom and fantastic convolu- i
tons, desires to raise a cloud of dust
20 hide from sight the benefits which I
he amnesty confers. So we will have
20 quote once more the Tribune against |
tself. This is from its editorial Of jan /
larry 10. 1893:
That any parties in Utah for solely +
partisan purposes would interpose an
objection in order to belittle the act of
he President, in granting clemency,I is
'ne of the strangest presentations of
partisan spite that we have ever seen"