The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-10-26

i to unjustly attack The Herald as to
its veracity. He then proceeds to assert
that:
1.-THE Democratic administration
seized nearly half million dollars
worth of personal property and money
Tor which there was not a scintilla of
warrant of law for doing"
Is that correct? Was it not the
courts which decided that there was
Warrant of law for the proceedings in
which the personal property was seized
as well as the real estate? And were
they not Republican courts? When
the case went to the Supreme Court
of the United States was it
not Republican court? Did
not the six Republican justices sustain
the decisions of the lower courts, and
the three Democratic judges dissent?
And is it not fair inference that if
the court had been composed of six
Democratic and three Republican JUS
tees the decisions would have been re-
versed?
Thus, all Mr.. Smiths declamations
and charges of theft" revert upon the
party which, to the amazement of his
friends who know the facts, he is
praising extravagantly and lauding to
the skies. All his assevera tons about
mo warrant of law" are direct re-
Elections upon the Republican judges
who decided there was warrant of
law" for the proceedings. And the
| fact that it took an Act of Congress
to restore the property is pretty good
evidence that it was considered there
was warrant of law for escheating it.
The real property, he says, remains
mot returned to the church," and
why? Because the Republican courts
held that it was forfeit and escheat,
as the Republican law of 1862 provided.
But it is true, though the gentleman
ocratic Congress and President.
through the labors of the Democratic
Delegate, have restored the personal
property, and that through the efforts
of the same Delegate, a bill is pending
in the Democratic Congress for the
return of that real estate.
The last attempt Of the gentleman at
reply to The Herald is either a most
remarkable blunder or a most 'un-
scrupulous" attempt to pervert The
Herald's remarks. We stated in refer
ence to the refusal of the church au-
thorities to comply with the request
of the Cleveland administration: 1--WE
find no fault with the refusal, we only
state the facts This Mr.. Smith de-
taches and applies in this way:
I am, however, glad to know that he
finds no fault with the refusal of
the Democratic Administration to adj
nit Utah some six years ago, for that
places him in line with the report of
my speech on the 10th inst.
There is nothing in The Herald ar
ticle which affords the slightest excuse
for this application. The Herald did
not admit of any compact" or re
fusal'' to comply with it, but on the
contrary challenged Mr.. Smith to pro
duce the proofs of his rash statement
that there was such a pledge" and de-
clared that it was NOT TRUE. That
Mr. Smith, while perverting our re-
mark, understood that we denied what
he pretends we admitted, is clear from
his subsequent admission that we de-
MED the compact and expect the Nor
mon people to believe it. If he consid-
ers that honest" and "scrupulous'
argument ne must have a singular I'M
Outstanding of those terms.
The Herald is so far from being Sin
the line" of Mr.. Smiths avowal that if
he had been the Republican party he
would have shut the door of the Union
against the people of Utah because
they were Democrats; that this paper
looks upon it as do thousands of Repub-
Hcans and Democrats. We regard it as
utterly hostile to every true sentiment
OF human liberty and anita gonistic to
the spirit of American institutions. We
forbear saying more in relation Ito it,
Almost as astounding as the utter
perversion of The Heralds remarks, is
his closing statement that The Herald
writer and his friends are Responsible
for dragging these matters into the dis
cussions of this political campaign
The Herald has simply replied to the
attacks of Republican writers and
speakers on those matters.
Mr.. Smith attacked the Democrats of
Utah in his Seventeenth ward speech.
and we replied to his misstatements
He attacked the Democratic party
again in his erroneous and illLtempered
article in the Tribune. We replied and
he has not answered our reply. but
perverted and misapplied some of Ol,r
remarks and evaded the main issue
while attaching opprobrious epithets
to this writer. We repeat our denial
of his alleged facts as to pledges from
the Democratic leaders or the Demo-
cratic party, and ask him to name
the men who made them if he can.
OF course his remarks suit the Tri-
5une. They are just the kind of
that that paper has delighted
in for many years. They find sweet
affinity with that dear friend of truth
and the Mormon people. The Herald
has stated nothing but the facts and
holds itself in readiness to acknowl-
edge an error when il is pointed out.
But it resents with as much caimness
as is reasonable under the circum-
stances, the unjust and untruihful
epithets which the gentleman in his
anger has seen fit to fling at us in the
place of argument. When he gets
time" to come up to the plane of fair !
discussion perhaps he will indulge in
less vituperation and more reason.
sOnIE AMORIyE oATHs.