Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-03-12
ALLEGED pLEpGE-BREAKNa.

There is q good deal of talk on the
street, particularly among men who
endorse the party machine, about
pledge breaking; and this charge Is be-
ing made against Mayor Clark, with
reckless disregard of truth and of the
history of the campaign that is surpris-
ing. Since John Clark assumed the
duties of Mayor he has neither vio-
lated nor In the slightest degree In
frnged upon any pledge made by him
prior to taking the oath of office. 1t
has been impossible for him to do so.
He could not do II were he to try. Dur
ing his entire term of office. whatever
may be his official acts. they can never
by any possibility afford the slightest
ground for the accusation that he has
violated any ante-election pledges. He
never made any.
A distinguishing feature Of John
Clark's candidacy was his stern, per-
slstent and unvarying refusal to make
any pledges. Time and again during
the canvass he was approached and
asked to pledge himself for or against
given candidate or proposition, but
he never yielded. His invariable reply
was that he would go into office I'M
pledged or not at all.
When he took the oath of office he
stood among the conflicting elements
and competing candidates that sur
rourded him as chief magistrate of the
city. absolutely free, untrammeled and
uncommitted so far as the details of
his policy and the selection of APP
pointees were concerned. He was In a
position to exercise. without fear. favor
or constraint, the legal and moral right
to select from among all the American
citizens In this city the men whom he
might desire as his associates and sub
ordinates In the management of NUM-
cipal AFFAIRS.
He had never. either expressly or by
Implication. promised that he would or
which IL equally important to be con-
sidered just now-that he would not
appoint any particular man. He was
ut perfect liberty to select appointees
from among the prominent men OF Re-
publican, Democratic or Partisan
political belief. and us matter of fact
has made selections from all three per-
suasions. Even the fact that man was
a member of the non Partisan commit
tee has never been n reason why the
Mayor could not select him for Office
without violating a pledge.
But pledge was made in connection
with the non-Partisan movement. who
made that pledge and what was 1t :
The non-Partisan committee made 1,
by resolution; the candidates selected
by the committee. and especially the
Mayor. We're never parties to 1t in the
remotest sense nor degree. The pledge
was to the effect that no member OF
the committee would seek to influence
the Mayor In his selections of candi-
dates for office, but would leave him
entirely free and untrammeled &c
choose for himself, without pressure
from them.
TO say that the members of the non
Partisan committee, by the adoption OF
this pledge. disfranchised themselves
made themselves ineligible for office
or deprived themselves OF any of theil
rights as American citizens, In utterly
absurd The pledge was intended to
leave the Mayor free from the pressure
Ol lllllutiltt tAtittu ny 'iit tbit'I'iN'tt
but It was never intended to prevent
him from choosing as one of his Of
fclal associates member of that com
mittee, should he see tit TO do so.
The Mayor has nominated n membe,
OF the nom Partisan committee as head
OF city department, but he did sc
without being asked to do 1t, either by
the nominee himself or any of the lat.
ter's colleagues of the committee. II
was the Mayors own spontaneous act
Hence no pledge has been broken in
the making of this appointment. Thls
will clearly and sufficiently appear as
soon as the pledge that was actually
given is examined and applied in nc
cordance with its letter, spirit and in
tent. The attempts that are persist
emily being made to wrest and expant
this pledge SO as to give It II meaning
and make 1t cover ground never de
signed by those who made It, are dis
honest, contemplate and doomed Il
failure. In saying this much, we dc
but repeat that they are strictly IL