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

over the signature of Joseph F. Smith
1t is supposed to be a review of the
article in The Herald replying to his
previous letter in the Tribune But it
really branches off to other matters
and does not reach the vital points of
dispute between him and The Herald.
After some rhetoric about the Republi-
can party which would apply just as
well to the Democratic party and does
not count in the argument, he suddenly
makes squirt for F. ]. Cannon but
gives him this doubtful compliment:
II would not ask every Utah-born
man TO vote for Frank j. Cannon by
reason OF any claims set up for him
personally, etc.
Well, as nobody asked him to do so,
and that has nothing to do with the
questions in the controversy over his
speech and letter. there is no need to
dwell upon it, but we will simply say,
we will ask Utah-born men and those
who are not Utah-born who have the
right, to vote for Joseph L. Rawlins on
account both of claims which are just
ly set up for him personally, and, be-
cause he represents the principles and
the party which have given political
liberty to Utah.
But let us get back to the real points
of discussion between us. Most of
these the gentleman brushes aside with
the remark that he cannot waste his
time in a controversy with an ''un-
scrupulous newspaper writer" Mr.
Smith seems unable to write without
wasting his time in applying epithets
which are totally undeserved, and
which reflect no credit on his cause or
his temper. The Herald has gone no
further as to Mr.. Smith personally
than to say and to prove that he is
mistaken. We will not retort in his
spirit. though both the occasion and
the provocation are open and ample
We are pleased to note that he
acknowledges the legislation which
escheatad the real estate of the Nor
mon church was Republican legisla-
ton, and that was the turning point
in this part Of the controversy The
act Of 1862 was the escheating act and
that was Republican legislation. Very
good. But he says sit remained a
dead letter. until "a Democratic ad-
ministration directed the Attorney
General to institute proceedings to
carry into effect the law of 1892
Now if that We're true. would not the
fact remain that it was Republican leg
islation that escheated the property?
And was not that the fact that he
disputed? But is his new statement
true? Is it not fact that the act of
1887 gave that direction and not the
administration? Is it not also true that
the bill originated in the Republican
Senate. being introduced by Senator
as an amendment to the Ed
munds act of 1882? Was it not fought
in the Senate by Democratic Senators,
several of whose speeches were pub
liShed in the Deseret News? Also is it
not a fact that only one Republican
voted against the bill in the House out
Of the forty votes recorded against it?
1t was the Republican party that
''resurrected the law from its tomb"
and if it never half believed in it
it forced it upon Congress at
time when the people of the United
States. aroused to fury by Republican
ant-Mormon efforts. demanded its pas
sage and made it hot for every Con-
gresham who attempted to stay the
tide of bitterness and wrath.
1t was Republican influence which
pushed the bill to an issue, branding
every Democrat who. opposed it with
supporting polygamy," ''upholding
and fighting for the
twin relic" exposing all of them to
ridicule and scorn and taking advant-
age of the popular feeling which Re
publican anti-Mormonism had aroused.
And it was in accord with party
doctrine and demands. The Democratic
party and the acts of individual Demo-
Gratis are not to be fairly made syno-
nymous. The Republican party, in the
platform preceding the Republican ac-
lion on the bill of 1887, had this plank in
It's national platform:
Resolved, That it is the duty of Con-
gress to enact such laws as shall
and effectually suppress the
system of polygamy within our terri
,ories. and divorce the political from the
power OF the so-called
Church; and that the laws
so enacted should be, rigidly enforced
oy the civil authorities if possible, and
Dy the military if need be-"
In pursuance of that, the Republican
Edmunds "resurrected" the Republi-
ean escheat law, and the Republican
senate passed the amendment calling for
is enforcement Let those individual
Democrats who yielded to the storm
which the Republican party had aroused
take their fun share of discredit, but |
10 not charge TO the Democratic party |
that which originated and was brought |
INTO active life by Republican legisla- |
ion.
Now as TO the disincorporation Of the /
church. The Herald, in quoting that |
part of the Republican law of 1862 es-
cheating the church property, which |
was the chief point at issue, mentioned |
incidentally that it also Imposed Sc
we're penalties against plural marriage"
md "annulled and repealed the Utah J
avs Incorporating the Church of Jesus |
Christ of Latter-day Saints There
vas a proviso attached to that annul- |
ing clause which we did not produce,
Tor did we quote the fine and imprison-
nent imposed as penalties. Those two |
features of the bill were merely men, |
Toned in passing. But Mr.. Smith !
impugns the honesty of |
he writer for not quoting the proyiso. I
L is this: