The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-08-10
1T Is QUITE EASY.

1T is hard getting along with con-
/ temporary that never states a propo-
sition fairly
So says our neighbor down the street.
We find it the other way. 1t is perfect
ly easy. We never knew the Tribune
to state a proposition fairly to which
it was opposed. But all we have to do
is to quote its exact language at one
| time with its exact language at an
other time. or in two different articles
on the same day.
| As to the power of Congress over a
territory, that paper plays two utter
| ly discordant tunes. When Utah held
a constitutional convention and
framed a state constitution in former
times, the Tribune took the ground
that it was all wrong because OF 1.-The
sovereignty of Congress over the ter
ritories," and that the proper way was
for Congress to grant to the territory
the right to do all that by passing
an Enabling Act.
Now it takes the ground that the
people of Utah, after being authorized
to take the necessary steps to form a
state, and being required to do every
thing under the provisions of an enab-
ling act, may do something for which
that act does not provide, because, it
says, they have IAN inherent right to
do SO.
In order to get out of this blank con-
tradiction, it proceeds to talk about
the right of petition and other things
that no one disputes. But that will
not do. This is the question:
Congress has fixed the day and date
when the election or the ratification
shall take place Now, if the terms of
the enabling act are not complied with
and the President, who is to see that
they have been complied with, refuses
to issue his proclamation, where does
the inherent right of the people to
hold another election for a new rati-
fication come in? Who is to call it,
who is to conduct it, to whom are the
returns to be made?
The only authority Utah has to hold
that ratificating election is in the en-
abling act, according to the prevailing
doctrine. Now that failing, how can
another election for the same purpose
be called without further action by
Congress? And how can a paper that
has denied the right of a territory to
move in the matter at all, now claim
that the people have an inherent right
to do something that Congress alone
must regulate?
Another thing. Our neighbor says:
THE Tribune has advised, while not
believing they can legally vote, for
women to register and vote"
That is to say, the Tribune admits
that it advises something that is il
legal, course which not long ago it
denounced as the very extreme of de-
pravity.
One thing more. The Tribune at
tempts to reply to our proof that
nearly all the Democrats in the con-
vention voted in favor of the propo-
sition to secure women in the right to
vote next fall, by saying:
That was not the point raised at all.
The point was that, when the ques-
ton was sprung in the convention, al
most the entire convention. by an
Oh, is that so? Well, we will have to
quote the Tribune against itself again.
On Wednesday last it said on this sub
ject:
1T is a mean political trick, the eff
fort to have women vote this fall, and
it was SO plain that hardly a corporaPs
guard voted for it."
We have proved there was no
trick" about il, but that it was a
plain proposition openly debated in the
convention and supported by all the
Democrats except four or five. But it
is easy to get along with "a con-
temporary that never states a propo-
sition fairly" Just confront it with it's
own contradictions and it is simply
fun.