The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-07-15
STILL AT IT'S OLD TRICKS.

The pertinacity with which our
neighbor down the street hangs on to
a falsehood which has been exposed so
! thoroughly that nothing of it is left, is
/ SO peculiar as to suggest case of
softening of the brain. Candidly, we
! believe that accounts for the pranks
Of our senile contemporary. If it was
not for the attacks it makes on The
Herald when persisting in its I'M
/ truths they might be passed by in
pity. But its vituperative assaults
have to receive some attention.
In the course of an editorial abound
/ ing in vile epithets on Saturday it re-
peated in another form its untruthful
statements about the action of the
Kentucky Convention. This time there
is a certain amount of that cunning
common to a certain class Of lunacy
in its attempt to appear right on this
matter. But it will not avail.
It's first assertion several times re-
peated was similar to this which We
clip from the Tribune of July Bird:
THE outcome was that a vote en-
dorsing the Chicago platform and all
the ruin wrought by the Cleveland adj
ministration passed with only two dis
senting votes"
This after several repetitions was
cha aged to twenty-five votes. Both
were straight unvarnished falsehoods.
( There was no such a vote as two nays
on any proposition before the conven-
ton. On the question which the Trib
une declared only two Democrats had
the courage to vote no there were 233
and a fraction nays.
But our tricky and transparent re-
viler Of its betters now says the Trib-
une and the Herald both published
this:
The final vote to substitute the mi
nority report for the majority report
on resolutions had only % ayes.
Suppose they did? What has that TO
do with the point in dispute? 1t re-
iates to an altogether different mat
ter. Is that a vote of two or twenty
two nays? 1t is an affirmative vote on
something else. 1t is not the vote ZEN
dorsing the Chicago platform" 1t is
not the vote endorsing the Cleveland
administration" 1t is not the vote
which the Tribune calls "a direct blow
at silver" Against that there were 233
odd nays, and the Tribune declared
there were but two, and then that
there were but twenty-five.
Now note the shabby subterfuge I'M
der which it tries to crawl and then
dart at The Herald the epithet "chron-
ic liar 1t is this;
I'VE have repeatedly stated that the
first test vote was about three to one
That is, the vote was 233 and a frac-
ton against silver, etc.
1t is false again. 1t was not ''the first
test vote for the control of the con-
vention' when that 233 and frac-
ton of nays We're cast, but the final
vote on the adoption of the majority
report. which the Tribune declared
only two Democrats had the courage
to vote against.
1t is wrong all through. Its first
false step has ever led to more. Every
time it has attempted by changing its
figures and shifting from it's position,
to appear correct, it has told a false
as well as a different tale. 1t cannot
produce a vote of two nays or twenty
two nays on any question before the
Kentucky convention. No such vote
was cast. Twenty-Five ayes on a diff
ferent question cannot do duty for two
or twenty-five nays on the adoption of
the majority report. 1t was the latter
on which the controversy turned.
The adage you can't teach an old
dog new tricks is so true that it is
useless for US to advise the friends of
the foul-mouthed Tribune to stop call
ing people Glars" when caught in it's
own mendacity, and to substitute ar
gument for epithets with an occasional
acknowledgment of error when its
blunders are exposed. But if it could
be induced to become half way de-
cent it might gain some little respect,
which is fast fading away for the Re
publican "erstwhile" influential paper
which declares it is mot a Republican
organ"
THE WOOL QUESTION.