The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-09-19
A Two-FAcED CONTEMPORARY.

In point of ability and character, tn
Democratic candidates for state sen
: ators are all right. Bishop Whitney i
a scholar and orator, and Messrs
Thomas and Peery are both capable
men of affairs.
That is true Bishop Whitney is {
scholar and an orator, himself fit t
shine in any legislative body in the
land. We select his name because oul
} Republican contemporary has used il
before. for purposes of comparison
The Tribune has held B. H Roberts
up before the people of Utah as g
marvel of oratorical ability, as the
superior of Whitney. Richards, Good.
win, Pierce, Van Horne, VarIan. Can
non, Evans, Hart, WINS, Nebeker
Snow, Thurman, and Eichnor.
Speaking of one of Roberts speeches
in the constitutional convention the
Tribune said april g. 1880: '.All who
heard it agree that it is the master eff
fort of the convention to date; that it
utterly. demolishes both Richards and
Whitney; that it is to them what a
grand river is to a stagnant slough.
Let us examine further the outrage
Gus duplicfty of our Republican con-
temporary in its fight on Mr.. Roberts.
| Yesterday morning it said:
I'm the constitutional convention he
made two great speeches on the sub
ject of woman suffrage. 1t was like
listening to trumpets and drums to
hear him. But, analysed, those
speeches will be found to have, under
lying them, the old domination of his
credible one-man rule. He gave
merely sermon on obedience with a
new accent. The natural arguments
which are suggested to thoughtful
minds, Were only generalized by him;
the speech was really only the old law
of might materialized, and disguised
in the garb of sister of charity
At the time the circumstances were
fresh on its mind and before it had a
partisan object in criticizing Mr.. Rob-
erts. the Tribune said:
by common accord it is a great
speech. 1t closed the debate and
closed it fifty. That it did not carry
the convention. is merely another way
of saying that the majority of the dele
gates were not open to reason, con-
sidering themselves bound by a ficti-
tious party action. But read Mr.. Rob-
erts' speechr'
Now. for partisan effect. the Tribune
says:
I'VE believe that nine-tenths of the
members of that convention will agree.
that after Mr.. Roberts made his anti
woman suffrage speeches. there was
not one word that he spoke, one thought
that he expressed, that had any in
fuence whate Ter in convincing the
judgment of any member or any sub
ject.' rs
1t contradicts itself too much to be
accorded the credit of honestly, sin
cerely, or even intelligently opposing
Mr. Roberts now. Every point it tries
to make against him is belied by its
own editorial admissions.
1t says, since he is a candidate, that
his speech convinced no one. It said
then, when he was not candidate, !
that it was a great speech which only |
failed to carry the convention because
the majority would not reason. One
time or the other it has lied to its |
readers and we purpose to show that, |
upon every point it dwells it has been
two-faced.
In regard to the speech it has referred
to the Tribune said at the time:
Mr.. Roberts speech was a rouser.
1t was the center of interest |
in the convention. The vote on separ-
ate submission is evidently gaining
fast. At first it is doubtful
if a dozen delegates would have voted
for this separation; now about 80
favor it,
On the 29th of March, 1895, speaking
Of a discussion in the constitutional
the Tribune said:
by common consent the honors of
the day in the debate were borne off
by Delegate Roberts. The DAVIS pecked
at the eagles plumage, but they didn't
ruffie it. The fact is, his argument,
all the conditions involved.
s unanswerable.
But now that Mr. Roberts is a can
lidate on the Democratic ticket, the
Tribune says:
His mind is strong and retentive,
out it is a reservoir, not a spring. He
never grasps a great idea except
through study. He reaches intellec-
ual heights as does the serpent, not
With the eagles flight
One day it compares him to an eagle
md on another day it says he is not
ike an eagle. Is the Tribune one of
he DAVIS?
Speaking of Mr.. Roberts as a can
lidate for congress, the Republican or
ian says:
HE was there lin the constitutional
what Hon. David Evans '
would be were he to undertake to as
ume an active part in quorum of the
eventies. From the above our readers
viii see that Mr.. Roberts would find I
inlself painfully out of his latitude in I
he house of representatives"
And yet, reviewing the work of that
ody, on the 9Th of April, 1895. the Tri- J
une referred editorially to "the Hon. i
). ii. Roberts" as the champion de-
alter of the constitutional conven- {
on' q
In that convention were men who b
ave aspired to the senate of the s
United States, who have sstumped Utah a
! race for congress; men who pride t
lemselves upon their skill in carrying
discussions; men who feel equal to a
uestioning the ability of Mr.. Roberts t
hold his own in congress- and other {
len whose acumen and strength in
'urt and on the hustings are certainly h