The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-12

Below is the reply Of the New YORK.
Times correspondent to the answer OF
President George Q. Cannon, which re-
Gently appeared in The Herald:
Salt Lake City, Utah. March 1.-The
reply Of George @. Cannon, published
in The Salt Lake Herald here. to ths
article published in The New York
Times, Feb. 13, must have reached New
York by this time. One conspicuous
result of the New York Times article
is the present attitude Of the Salt Lake
Tribune. That paper demands that
Republicans take up Mr.. Cannon's
fight and force the New York Times to
a divuIgence of the name Of the con-
tributor daring to discuss that gentle
man as would be discussed any other
man of prominence. II makes this de-
mand in spite of the statement OF Mr..
Cannon that he has never publicly eX-
pressed any political convictions, and
has done nothing toward the results
as they stand. have been shown
copies of The Tribune, (and they are
almost lfmitleSS,) in which Mr.. Cannon
is, by that paper, estimated praCti-
cally as the New York Times has esti-
mated him-a5 the controlling influence
in Mormon affairs, and as man so
adrOit and plausible as to cause that
paper continuously to designate him as
Smooth Bore" There is no conSp1c-
'uous man in New York in politics to-
day to whom this description would
apply but to eeclesiastic circles there
is one person who answers perfectly
to the appellation- no one IN Utah
credits The Tribune with any other
than purely political motives IN the
defense of Mr.. Cannon
The De5eret Evening News. edited.
as already stated, by Mr. Cannon's
newspaper. SOM although the organ OF
Christian people, makes a very IN
worthy defense 1t seems heated with
the idea that VituperatiOn is a reply
and denunciation an argument. Surely
Mr. Cannon. innocent and q follower
of the lOWly Nazarene, could not have
taught his sons that abuse OF an OPP
pOnent is the proper method Of in
spring in unbehevinS minds a, respect
of the teachings of the church. AS
Stunning Mr.. Cannon to be as good a
man as Mr.. Cannon says he is, and
as the church organ says he is. then
his precePts and practices seem to
have been productive of very unSatis-
factory results in the literary son, II
one is to judge by the expressions en-
plOyed in divers articles in The News
while discussing the subject.
His Defense u Church Necessity.
All through the excitement created
by the appearance of the article in The
New York Times. (and certainly it has
been an excitement profound enough
to satisfy the most eXacting person in
pursuit of the Unusually there has been
steady and unfailinS disposition on
the part of Republican prints genef-
ally. and the church press particularly.
to justify the position of the New York
Times as to Mr. CannOn's relation to
the church. This has not been an in
territorial justification, but an involun-
tdry and inevitable one in a community
whose current thought has 50 long
been compelled to traverse fixed chan
nels. 1t is shown in the disposition Of
the church organ to make It appear
that the discussion Of Mr.. CannOn's
history was nothing if not tantamount
to an attack on the church Mr.. Can
non. in his reply. makes it so appear.
and The News makes it 50 appear. The
Tribune alone intimateS that it is an
attack on the Republican party, but
( this is ascribed to a mental alteration,
in which The Tribune. dixie others.
since Mr.. Cannon's son became a can
didate for delegate to COngress,) has
3 grown to look upon the Republican
party and the church party as the
4 same thing, and that in attacking Mr..
( Cannon, an assault, by the same token
I has been committed on both the Re-
publican party and on the church.
Does this not substantially verify
the declaration of the New York Timeg
/ that far and away ahead Of any other
/ man in the west, in that quiet yet
potential influence which means abSOs
lutte results, is Mr.. George @. Cannon?
If Mr. Cannon has been singled out
for discussion. it is merely a recogni-
ton of the commanding position oe-
cupied by him
Review, Not an Attack
Mr.. Cannon is ungenerous in his re-
ply. Matters had been communicated
( to me regarding his own and his fam
lily affairs, which, if true, would have
made highly interesting reading. and
which I knew the New York Times
would not desire to use any more than
4 1 to repeat them. But when MI Can
non CONSTITUTES the article in question
as an attack on him and his family.
! with no higher object than to do them
injury he is unmindful of a past that
| might be reVived-d past which the
court records bear evidence of, and
which still otherwise fingers in the re-
gretful memory OF deNoIed people.
OF course Mr.. Cannon's sons could not
be expected to rejoice at wide dis
eussion Of the affairs of their father,
and incidentally of their own Yet
they should be neither forgetful nor
unjust The desire has been to dis
cuss only such matters as seemed
proper subjects for public review.
If Mr. Cannon's reply is read with
ANYTHING like the care evidently taken
in it's preparation, my impression Is
that it will be found seriously lacking
in candor. 1t is certainly eYasive. 1t
possesses this characteristic in a de-
gree as marked as some OF the recent
declarations of Thomas G. Plat, Of
New York. in reference TO Mayor
Strong. and the attitude toward him
of the Plat followers in the lesisla-