Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-06-08


To tho Editori
ON Saturday evening last, la tho Ihir-
tecnuh ward meeting mouse, spoke for
some twenty minutes In favor OF pro.
hihiiion for our new State. / used no
notes and made no special preparation
for my address. In course Of my ro-
marks I touk occasion to rotor TO and 10
critlcise an editorial which appeared In
tho NLws OF that date. Oh sunday
morning tho Tribune giving report OF
that meeting, heads II with the.o Words
'Scott Anderson Angerod by Newspaper
Gri,ic,.ua,n and Ia tha body OF tho report
l am made TO say that l sugmatizod tho
author rs "a scdrrilous rascal no matter
who he is.h
Yesterday wrote TO the Tribune ex-
planning that did not object to. and was
no, angored by newspaper criticism, and
that tho article IN the NEWS was not
seurrllous, whatever else Il was, and that
1 could not have called tho author a
scnrrilous rascal. l further explained
that my principal and strongest objec.
ton TO the article was that Il purported
by tho use Of the editorial two TO speak
for tho whole Church aud not tor tho
writer only.
For some cause or other my letter did
not appear In tho Tribune. l therefore
ask you TO kindly insert this brief nolo,
permitting mo to say In conclusion that
| am strongly opposed 10 the idea that
tho Church 10 which | belong shall DO
procluded from speaking out las
church) In favor Of any and every needed
reform. shall iako an early opportun.
ny OF FULLY explaining my viowa In this
direction.
Yours respectfully,
ScoIT ANDERSON
June sth, isgd.
with the issue between Me Anier.
sou and the Tribune We have no
interest further thaa that, since he ~.
pears to have been denied the privilege
OF stating his own position concerning
what he said about tho News, we
deem II jus, to give publicity 10 his
statement, that he may no, b. unfsirly
represented before tho people.
Upon the two points OF obi sclion
which the gentleman takes 10 the
NEWS article; On the first, perhaps It
m light not bs Amias 10 call his a.lsn.
ton to a fact that Is thought to be
generally underatood, though no
seems not TO comprehend II ~
some others do. The editorial 1--WE"
represents the editorial view OF the
paper; sometimes that view may b.
the same as that taken by the Church
on question, or It may DO
on matter on which tho Church
has not expressed an opinion;
eve" means the editor Ia that oappc.
lty, and nobody else--lhis disposps u
objection number one, AZ TO tho
other point, our article contained 40
suggestion that the Church 10 which
the gentleman belongs, on any other,
should be prccludei from speaking
out Nc u church In favor OF reform. Our
inslsience Is that the Chuiol ia ppr.
fectly tree Of restraint In that business,
and that Its work Ia to make every
honorable effort TO reform men
nom evil or misfortune. What
we did say was that no church as
such ought 10 seek TO dictate
to or dominate the state In legislative
or other proceedings that are solely the
business methods OF the state. Tho
gentleman misunderslAnds our inten.
ton II no thinks wo would put strings
on any church or church member In
exercising the greatest possible liberty
that Gomez with state guarantee oil
perfect religious liberation. Possibly
with this explanation and such further