Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-04-24
THIS SHOULD SUFFICE.

a few OF our friends. FOR whom We en-
terrain much regard and whose opin-
Ions arc entitled 10 respect. who think
the Dcs.rct News should pay no attcn-
ton To such attacks. rs they are not
worthy Of notice from anybody. We
ruggest that they pass by this article
and read other portions Of this Issue VI
the News permitting the very large
majority of our subscribers 20 take
their choice niso and read what plcasea
them.
ON Feb ". 1890. the anti-"Mormon"
organ In this city. made this assertion;
Again I, has been demonstrated that
all over Utah are polyrainous Wiycs
Who were not wives IN 1886; We nnd thnt
Apostles are whipping In the people
To obey the rricrthood even to taxing
more wives"
Afro that
"vi,hln the past eighteen months we
md where women nj Church meetings
are urging young girls to 20 Into poly
gamy: we ma where some OF the very
highest officers 81 the Church are junti-
flying such 'Mormonn' az 20 Into poly
gamy, etc"
That paper among other rcmarin of
similar tendency announced
"we have abundant proof TO satisfy
any reasonable person"
These statements were repeated and
exaggerated until II was declared TINT
"rtah IL Milling up with polysamous
wives, who We're not wives previous 10
the manifesto"
Sometimes that was varied 10. "who
were not wives before statehood was
obtained"
The Deserct News asked for those
abundant proofs and was treated TO
series OF epithetr. In which the editor
Of this PAPER was called all the pct
names IN which the an,l-"Mormon'' or
gan delights. and which II mistakes for
arguments. SIN demanding the proofs
We wcr. denounced Ms a "meaHurcle--
l,ar''-onc OF the miidcst terms used.
why We should be 80 treated for asking
for that which wna asserted TO be 10
abundant" did not very clearly ap-
pear. hut at length nm account was
given Of the alleged plural marriage OF
n prominent gentleman who was de-
ceased. and this was followed. some
time later, by story about q woman
also deceased. having been married TO
another prominent gentleman. but II
was not stated that the marriage was
polygamous.
The nrri ytory was one 81 number
Of dliferett versions, over all Of which
was certain amount OF mystery,
and each OF which contradieted
the others. OF course we did
no, regard the published story Us proof
The other We treated with some levi'y'
for Il was not alleged that tho marriage
was unlawful. In fact no charge was
made ut all In the article. but We wcf"
asked " n was not proof sufficient
Proof Of whatg' was our query, and
that has not been answered.
Now We wish TO rny rs u SUFFICIENT
response to NIL the alleged facts. ram
pant assertions. Illogical deductions
gucsacs, scandals, rcurrilities and per-
sonal dsfamations INDUCED In by our
incorporate contemporary. that "
everything II has stated aH matters OF
fact IL true--whlch we do not admit
nevertheless those abundant proofs
have not been presented. TO rubstanu'
ate the charges that "ali over Utah are
polygamouA wives who were not wives
In 1896: or that women at Church
meetings have urged young girlA TO 20
into polygnmy" or that Apostles have
been whipping the people into polyg'
amy"
II the cases 40 peculiarly touched
upon by the nccuser could he proved
10 have been violations OF the conhtl'
tuition or laws OF the state. they would
not constitute the breaking Of any
pledges to this nation, or tho violation
~ any contract entered into with the
government They would simply be
criminal conduct ON the part OF a very
few individuals, who would be per-
Honaily responsible for their onenses.
We say further. that " convictions
could be had In those oases-and we are
sure they would follow n the anti
"Murmon'' organ could only furnish
those wonderful "proofs"-lhey would
show less violations Of anti-bigamy
laws than are common In other States
OF the Union. And thoy DO not Justify
the endeavors OF preachers and editors
to arouse public sentiment against an
entire community.
There Is no use to repeat this, per-
haps. There Is certainly no good pur-
pose ia the monstrous cNaggeratlona
that have been INDUCED In, We know
that the President Of the Church has
placed the ban OF his authority against
the performance Of the ceremony OF
plural marriage, either here or olse-
where, and that such marriages have
entirely ceaaed In this state and In
this Church. We nre permitted to say
this under his sanction aud authority.
That should settle the question In the
minds OF reasonable people, aud those
who have lost their reason on this
question win have to rave over II unit
they are tired or Ind II exceedingly un
profitable