The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-27

! The people were advised to divide as
nearly equal in the two parties as pos
sible, and if they would not do that
not to vote at ALL" we know nothing
about. If he does he knows more than
we give him credit for. He says you
know that officials of the Mormon
church went about the country giving
these instructions. and that some who
did SO claimed to be Democrats. but
were obeying Church COUNSEL That is
one of Dinniny's numerous assump-
tions and impertinences. We do not
know anything of the kind. Neither
does he. He may have been told that.
but we venture to say he has never
heard it himself nor have We That in
dividuals have advanced that theory
we do not dispute. What we do deny
is that the Mormon church officially
promulgated that rule or used any COM
pulsion, or control or coercion in any
form to bring it about. or that if such
influence was used it turned Demo-
Gratis into the Republican party.
We take occasion to say here, what
The Herald has said repeatedly and
exercise of ecclesiastical power in favor
of a particular political party, whether
it be the Republican or the Democratic
party or any other party. We have
been ready to expose such influence
whenever the proofs of it were forth
coming. What we object to are rash
statements without proof, similar to
many of Mr.. Dinniny's assertions.
The gentleman starts out with a
theory and tries to make everything
in sight bend to its support. He shuts
his eyes to every other idea, however
Reasonable and supported by facts.
and is oblivious to the weakness of his
own cause when absolute proofs are
required. His theory is that Church
influence" was used to defeat Mr..
Rawlins in 1892 and in 1894. What does
he mean by Church influence" He
mentions Mr. Gibbs, who is not q
Church leader and who is not known
to have any particular Church in
fluence," but has the rights of a citi-
zen as much as Mr.. Dinniny has. Also
John Henry Smith. Why he leaves
out George Q. Cannon to whom he
only incidentally refers but who was
made the centre spot in the target in
the New York Times attacks, we do
not know.
But if the political speeches of John
Henry Smith prove Church influence
to defeat the. Democratic candidate.
what do the political speeches Of Mo-
ses Thatcher, B. H. Roberts and others
prove. who did all that lay in their
power to elect the Democratic candi-
date?
But Mr.. Dinniny says Of Mr.. Smith
that "by his talk he led the people
to believe he was speaking the wishes
of the Presidency of the Church as
no doubt he was" We doubt that
very much. Can Mr.. Dinniny quote
from one of John Henry Smiths
speeches remarks that indicate that?
1t is simply Mr.. Dinniny's say so and
is not supported by a scrap Of proof.
Mr.. Dinniny says, further, You
know that the Church through its Of
ficers and agents obtained the name of
every voter in Sanpete county just be-
fore the last election" etc. That is
another piece of consummate impu-
ience on his part. We do not know
anything of the kind. We do not know
Of any young Democrats Of Cache
being notified to go on mis-
sions," or of any Mormon Democrats
being notified to appear for trial. etc.
Does Mr.. Dinniny know of any? Or
has not somebody told him that stuff
md he was ready to believe it?
Does The Herald deny it?" The
Herald simply knows nothing about
t, nor does anybody on The Herald
staff know of it. Further, we do not
believe word of it. We
hink it probabl that some young
nen have been notified to go on mis-
'ions, because that is a common thing. |
We know of some who are Republi- |
ans. We have no idea they were
allied on that account. Nor do /
We believe others have been called
they are Democrats.
There is nothing in the discipline of |
he Mormon Church which would put
Mormon Democrats or any one else
IN trial for telling the truth about
anything or anybody. We believe
hat query of Mr.. Dinninys to be i'm
,udent assumption in the form of a
question, to put The Herald in the at
itude of defending the Mormon
Church. And in saying that we
Know this. and we know that, and
We know the other, Mr.. Dinnfny re-
'orts to a very paltry piece of petit
ogging that is deserving of much
larsher and much shorter term.
The gentleman shows the weakness
f his cause by asserting that GER
ain results have been brought about
" Church influence. which is a vague
Expression of dubious meaning. and
hen instead of proving his PROPOSE
ion he cites certain figures as re
ults, and triumphantly asks ''if it
vas not Church influence that brought
his about what was it?" We will
But first we will tell the
Gentleman what a great many good
Democrats say about THAT.
They say it was the kind of man
cement that was at the head of the
ampaign committee in 1894 that
rought about the defeat of the Demo-
ratio party. Mr. Dinniny tells us what
great many Democrats say. or have
their suspicious about" church influ-
nee. we tell him what a great many
Their Democrats say in reference TO
lie cause of non-success to our party