The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-11-08

The appearance in yesterdays Trib-
-une of an alleged interview with Presi-
dent George @. Cannon was read with
considerable establishment in the city.
and the belief soon became more or less
general that the interview was a fake
Subsequent developments fully con-
firmed this belief.
In the interview President Cannon
was quoted as having stated that Gov
ernor Wells had said nothing about
Hon. B. H. Roberts that would justify
the reply made by the Democratic can
didate. This was followed by the naive
remark that anything he (AIr. Cannon)
might say would be used to further the
interests of some candidate. therefore
he did not wish to talk at all" It
also included some reference to the pO-
sitiOn Of man who cOhabitS with his
plural wives.
To ascertain whether this interview
was genuine or not, a Herald repre-
sentative called on President Cannon
at the church Office yesterday and was
courteoUsly received
president Cannon, is the interview
with you in this mornings Tribune
genuine?" was asked
Now, do not wish to be interview
ed" replied President Cannon. 1T is
my desire not to figure in the newspa.-
pers at all, and I have carefully re-
Trained from saying anything that
could have any bearing on political
matters. I cannot consent to an in
terview."
would you object to having these
questions put before you decline to be
interviewed"
THE subject will be fully covered in
the News tonight. have not given the
Tribune reporter any interview nor
shall I give you one. My statement in
this evenings paper VIII be sufficient.
This ended the attempt at securing an
interview.
HIS STATEMENT IN THE NEWS.
President Cannon's statement ap-
peared on the editorial page Of the
News last night, and is as follows:
ct DID NOT SAY TO A NEWSPA-
PER REPORTER YESTERDAY, OR
TO ANYONE ELSE AT ANY TIME,
| WITH HIS PLURAL WIVES VIO-
| IlATES THE LAW said President
| George @. Cannon to a News represen-
tative today.
"a declaration so EDsitive, unequivo-
cal and extra-judicial upon question
that has excited SO much discussion
and that presents so many complex and
.
be rash, to say the least. especially in
! view of the present agitation Of the
subject.
'sTVhat I did say" he continued, was
that it was a very delicate thing for
me to answer interrogatOries of the
kind this reporter propounded, and that
| I preferred not to do so. But if, as he
said, it was a violation Of the law for
men to live with their plural families
for he said the law plainly declared
it so-then men who did so must take
the risks, whatever they might be-
| did not wish to interpret the law.
1 Where men had wives and felt under
sacred obligations TO treat them as
such in every respect, thinking that the
! obligation was so sacred and binding
| that it could not be ignored, they OF
| course in taking their own view Of the
! obligation doubtless We're also prepared
to take whatever risks there might be-
The reporter said there could be no OBJ
| lection to mems taking care Of their
wives, providing for their wants, etc,
but the point was whether they could
be justified in going beyond this and
| cohabiting with them as wives-and
upon this point I did not care to ex-
! press an opinion.