The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-17
rREAr THp euEsTIox EAlR1Yn


ing The Salt Lake Herald, for '.indulg-
ing in a controversy with one of its
That is a crime, if
it be crime. to which we plead guilty.
We frequently publish communications
on which we find it our duty to COM
ment. This time it is correspondence
on the prohibition question that The
Herald has seen fit to make some re
marks. We have given space to cour-
teous communications from gentle
man. and we have given some of our
views on the same subject at the same
time. What business that is of the
Deseret News we do not at present
perceive.
But the News has shown a disposi-
ton, recently, for some unexplained
cause to pick at The Herald, some
times about very small matters such
as a typographical error, instances of
which might be pointed out in the
News columns every day. That paper
now says;
THE News took the ground from the
beginning of the movement to procure
the submission to the vote of the peO-
pie Of this important question, that it
could see no valid reason against 1t.
Well what of it? Is that any rea-
son why The Herald should not have
a decided opinion on the question
The News seldom takes any definite
position on popular topics, and it
manifests Impotence and irritation
over the positive stand taken by
others But its querelous attitude or
self-important assumption is a matter
of profound Indifference to us and to
the general public.
However, the News accuses The
Herald of resorting to misrepresenta-
ton. In doing so it grossly nlisrepre-
sents The Herald, which is nothing
new lately, with the Deseret News.
After talking ramblingly about dds
coloration Of an important fact" and
Treating every question with fairness
and candor," the News comes to the
alleged Misrepresentation for which it
seeks to excoriate The Herald. In
speaking Of the purpose in view Of
submitting the prohibition question to
the popular vote, The Herald did not
use the exact language Of the circular
formulated by the prohibition people,
which the News says is this:
No person, association or corporation
shall, within this state, manufacture
for sale or sift as a beverage, any in
toXicatfng liquors, and no person, as
ISOLATION or corporation shall import
any of the same for sale or gift, or
sell or offer or keep the same for sale,
Or gift, barter Or trade as a beverage.
We we're not attempting to quote
the language Of the circular. We
merely alluded in general terms to the
purpose in view But what is the ter
rible thing The Herald has done, ac-
carding to the Deseret News? Why
simply omitted the words "as beV-
erage." That is the sum and sub
stance of our offence, nothing morel
But the whole controversy between
The Herald and its correspondent has
been on the beverage question. 1t was
as a beverage that formed
the subject of each others remarks:
The question of alcohol for manufac-
lures or indictments has not been
touched on by either party. The Her
aid has published the circular of the
prohibition movers in full. 1t has
given place to their communications:
Why should the Deseret News intrude
itself into the controversy between The
Herald and one of its correspondents?
If it was q News correspondent to
whom The Herald had replied, there
might be some excuse for that which
is, under the circumstances, only a
piece OF inpertinence mingled with
stupidity.
Readers of The Herald will see that
we have made no misrepresentation of
our correspondents position. He has
not claimed that we have. We have
no complaint from him. But the Des-
eret News falsely and impudently ac-
cuses us of misrepresenting the case
under discussion, solely on the ground
that we do not constantly repeat "as
a beverage" when there has been no
discussion of the liquor question ex-
cept as a beverage.
We have taken the ground that the
people of a municipality, like Salt
Lake or Ogden, should have the regu-
Iation of the liquor traffic within their
corporate limits, and that the people
of st. George in the south, and Rich
nond in the north, Tooele on the west
and Uintah on the east, should each
regulate their own local affairs and
not by their votes dictate what shall
be the policy Of this city in this re-
spect. ''As a beverage" cut no figure
in the question. 1t is a matter Of local
self-government that is in dispute.
We advocated local option. Our cor
respondent is against that and in favor
of vote of the whole territory on
the question. He has right to his
views, 50 have we to ours The News
as usual doesn't appear to have any
but simply sees no valid reason against
the latter. We have no objection to
its purbHndness and have not alluded
to it till now. But the beverage"
part of the matter to which it seems
to attach such Importance is not in
any way germane to the local option
controversy between us and our CORES
pondent.
We endorse the closing remark of
the News editorial:
'The people very properly resent
n
whether Intentional or otherwise"
the whole article to which we make
reply is misleading in its tendency. 1t
is in the same line as other attempts
TO ,,,,4 rNI,, fa1ea I'M,