Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-09-12
rms cnuncn Non ~ H.

The Denver Nswa. like 40 papers
that have any controversy with th"
onti-"Mormon" organ in thlH city h'H
found out that the latter iH "'lth'r fore
rctful or uuillr" and proceeds CO. show
how d hna misHntod th' position Of
tho Denver Npwa in itH discussion NJ
tho Roberts congressional analr with
a little more OF such experience. 10
viii discover that o. salt Lake Hdycr.
aary IN both. THAT % frequently fore
rcfa what & published but short
tlric boforl. that II denies ono week
what q affirmed the previous week.
that it mlsquutoa its opponents and
chnrrcH thom with saying the very OPP
poaltc ~ their uttonnccH. md TINT 70
worry rarely meets question Hquurc-
ly.
The Denver News concludes g. nril-
Gle with some remarks which we think
exhibit o. lack M knowledge na To tho
facts having drawn ~ Information 90
from the source which Il regards
90 "forgctful or unfair II sayH'
'sTho Mormon Church authorities
are sadly lacking IN naEncity ana po'
lltlchl wisdom On having made thlH
ease on Roberts. n has aroused doubts
na 10 their sincerity aud demand Tor
l-p0lyrnmy Hesitation, little dreamed
~ when Roberts was made "a con-
FroHHinnn,'
We wish our Denver contemporary 90
understand that the "Moriaon church
authorities" have made and are max
Ing no ease at an con Roberts" They
had nothing 10 do with his nomination,
or his election; they have nothing 10
90 with hlr defense. The whole mat
ter H. purely political. except Tor the
attacks made upon him by religious Sec
tnrios. There ~ not tho slightest cvi-
donce In the nature ~ proof that tho
church authorities have any Cease" or
arc doing anything whatever PRO or
con. ION Roberts"
There IL this much Of connection be-
tween the Church authorities and the
Roberts matter. 4 rule. which has ale
ways existed Ia the church. was form-
ulatcd aud adopted and published by
the Church about three Year, ago. TO the
effect that nli Church officials whose
time and talents were pledged 60
Church service should. before cnFnE-
ing In any pursuit which would take
them away from such duties, Apply %
their church leaders Tor permission 10
do 80. There was some misundcrathnd-
INK at first nH 10 the purport Of this
declaration, but that was soon re-
moved when II was properly UNDER
stood.
Row. n permission had been refused
10 Alr. Roberts and given 90 hls poliu-
cal opponent. 60 stand Tor the office 20
be- nurd. or ylcr versa, tho supporters
Of tho candidate thus objected 60 might
have had some grounds Tor claiming
that the church authorities were par
tal. or favored one political party 10
the dotrimcnt Of others, Neither cane
dldntc was denied this liberty. Neither
81 them received support from the
Church IN tho race for Congress. It was
not Church AFFAIR Tho nominations
for both candidates were regularly
made. and tho election was regularly
conducted. ana no legal objection has
been raised against the proceedings.
II IT, claimed that one gentleman who
occuplca u leading ecclesiastical posi-
ton. strongly supported IN, successful
candidate, which H. not denied. But 10 b.
denied that hc ala no iu any other way
than as "a delegate 20 the convention
and as a cltlzou. or that hc used lm-
proper or undue influence OF any kind.
either in tho nomination or the election.
on the other hand, a gentleman hold
Ing equal ecclesiastical authority aided