The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-04-20
hundred people got together" and de

hundfed people got together ana ue-
scribed the meeting thus:
One after the other of them got up
and declared how necessary IL was that
this region should be free from church
rule; and then an address was prepared !;
and we will guarantee that after the cleo
ton is over, after the excitement has
passed away. that Judge Powers him
self viii admit that there never was on
earth before so fiat a peroration after an
eXordium so sounding. The call was like
sthe manifesto of some Central American
braggart. who, having no other means to
make a living, issues a manifesto to in
cite his fellow loafers to undertake a
revolution"
This from the Storm Starter which
has been issuing calls to young Utah
to reassemble ever since the first legis-
lature met and selected Arthur Brown
as Frank J. Cannon's colleague in the
senate.
What did it say of that protest of
1895, and the declarations accompanying
it? Read from its editorial:
Now. is it not clear that what the
Democracy have done will have the di-
rect effect OF keeping immigrants from
coming here?"
And it answered its own question as
follows:
We think so. and we think the decent
people OF this territory may hold the
Democracy justly responsible for causing
the awakening of unworthy suspicious
against us all, the result of which must
be a retarding OF our growth, the keep
ing back of worthy emigrants Qmmi-
grants, the withdrawing from us of that
confidence which was swiftly being eStab-
liShed."
They dhe several hundred delegates
who met have done what they could to
spread distrust of this people throughout
the United States; they have done what
-hey could TO alarm the country and to
make the people of the United States
generally believe that when the Peoples
party dtsbanded, and they filed off on
party lines, they were not sincere, that
all they need is a hint from the first
presidency of the Mormon church .1o
make them forget their pledges and
their sense of honor and their native
manhood. We think it all an outrage
g. @ o
Perhaps we have put our finger on
enough of its record while it was
counting church favors." But it may
say that all this is only an expose of
its inconsistency in regard to that con-
vention. Then here are some further
excerpts from its editorials of the sem
atorial bee-buzzing season, which it
may desire an opportunity to explain.
on the 18th of October, 1895, the Tri-
bune said:
There is not a man, woman or child
in Utah who for one moment thinks that
there is any agreement or thought of
restoring polygamy in this territory, or
that it could be possible even if such a
thought was in the minds of few
bigots."
On the 22nd of October, 1895, it said:
There is going to be no revival of
polygamy; there is going to be no return
TO church rule
Furthermore, its views on the mani
festo of 1890 have undergone remark
able change. Four years ago, COM
menting editorially upon 1.-The pronun-
ciamento issued by the president of the
Mormon church" the Tribune said;
Again. in considering this matter,
thoughtful people will not lose sight
of the fact that human passions can
not always be killed by a proclamation,
or the habits of years made to lose their
influences. Beyond all that, the matter
of faith was not touched upon by the
point of plural marriages, which had
been taught as a holy sacrament, must
not hereafter be solemnized We believe
that the rule then laid down has been
as sacredly kept by this people as it
would have been by any other people;
that the Mormons and GentileS have a
right to say that the change amounts to
a transformation"
Now read again the paragraph with
which this article begins, and tell us
whether an intimation of change of
front lis cowardly and altogether I'M
true This is a case that calls for
more than the usual consignment of
epithets and innuendoes from our
morning contemporary.