The Evening dispatch. [volume] (Provo, City, Utah) 1891-1895, 1894-09-27
JOE. RAwLlNs' EXPLANATION.

The ribune says Joe. Rawlins is pet
ter than his party and goes into the
campaign to explain what he did in
congress. The fact is Mr.. Rawlins did
nothing in congress that needs exp'sn-
alton, and also nothing but what his
party sent him there to do. He was
simply and only faithful and honest
,rvitOr OF tie people who discharge | is
every duty as few men have ever done
and fully to the entire satisfaction, not
of his party alone, but OF ths whole
people Of tue territory. 1t Is this ex-
PLANTATION which the Tribune breads.
This it is which Will beat Mr.. Cannon.
Ii MIR. Rawlins said not word outside
of this subject, if he gave only d simpl5
and truthful recital OF his own labors
and all the circumstances surrounding
the work and said not a single word
more, he would beat the republi-
con candidate against him, by many
thousand votes.
The idea that RawlIns has to ex-
plain or apologize for the passage Of
the statehood enabling act! Perhaps If
tue people of Utah were all republic
cans and opposed to statehood as
that party IS, perhaps both ex-
planation and apology would be
required. But they are not,
and so Mr. Rawlins viii probably
omit that part OF the Tribune's pro-
gram for him. But now since the sug-
gestion is made, may We inquire what
republican orator has, so far IN this
campaign, spoken of statehood, has
gloried in the new dignity conferred
upon the people of Utan2 What re
publican orator has ever glorIed over
the defeat of Colorado in her impudent
attempt to unload her worthless idle
and marauuing southern Utes on San
Jaun county, Utah? This, too, is one
of the things, according TO the Tribune,
which Rawlins is called upon TO ex
plain and apologize for. What repub-
Iican orator has told the people Of the
immense value of the rich lands opened
up to white settlement in the Ulntah
and Uncompagnre reservations, by the
Delegate RawIins? Is this also one of
the things he is called upon to ex-
plain and apologize for? Why Is not
he RI Of
TO refer to these glorles of Utah won
only last session Of congress by her
pterless representative in that body?
Well answer our own question: If
they did SO, Rawllns' majority would
grow out OF proportion, as it will any
how. No, such is the desperate con-
dition of their campaign that they
dare not mention these great benefits
conferred by Mr.. Rawlins.
Has any republican orator been
strong enough to mention Mr.. Raw
Inns name in connection with the re-
turn OF the money and escheated
church property? Not one. This
would catch even the republican Nor
mons with death clutch and not all
tle party lashings could prevent them
from voting for the brave servant of
the people who won for them that
guerdon back for their beloved church.
We dare them to do MIR. Rawlins'
justice in these matters.
But in the TribuDe's eyes Mr.. Raw
Inns great fault is that he differs from
the president on tie silver question.
Since when is it that the Tribune has
developed .his extraordinary interest
in, and care Tor the president? Now we
just fear that there is small mite of
hypocrisy in this position of that oily,
willy, and astute paper. Mr.. Rawlins
is a Utah man, hence is for silver. If
Mr.. Cleveland was an Utonian as is
MI, Ra Wins, be, too, would be for sill.
yer and there would not be particle |
of difference between them. AS it is,
the difference strengthens Rawlins in
this race amazingly, and that is what
hurts the Trib.