The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-03-01
YOUNG UTAH'S REPLY.
salt Lake Clty, Feb. q, /

Salt Lake City, Feb. o. 1899.
To the Editor of The Herald
Sir: In the lengthy and labored edi-
torial of the 9th inst. the Salt Lake
Tribune prints what is supposed 10 be a
reply to the protest from young Utah
which appeared in your columns the day
previous The said article begins and
ends with poetic reference to "a late
ETC.. to which there can be no serious OBJ
lection except. perhaps, its irreiaVency
to the matter under consideration.
We are not u1ScusSills the climatic ef-
fects upon vegetation just now, and these
flowers that bloom IN the Spring, ira
la-la, have nothing to do with the case. :
The entire article is a studied and withal
issue, viz: Has the Tribune any moral or
legal right 10 pose before the world as the
organ OF Young Utah. and to assume the
authority OF dictator ana ADVISER! Ihis
is the point of controversy and is the
question the signers of that document
demand shall be settled. Instead of of
fering any facts or even excuse, in justi-
fication of what we consider is an unwar
ranted and obnoxious assumption on the
part OF the Tribune, the editor. with
Characteristic shreWdness, 1nnocently %
ignores the vital part of our letter. and
las was expected) insinuates that the two
hundred names represent so many satel-
lites rejecting the rays of some superior
bodv-tWo hundred SerfS dolnS the bid
ding of a hidden power. Shame! Why
cannot he try to be honest and give
others the same credit--at least OCCASION
ally? Why does he not deal with facts,
and drop these insinuations and unmaniy
surs? Or are we to understand that this
Is asking too much!
The indirect charge that the letter was
prepared by Apostle II. j. Grant. or that
1t was supplementary to sermon de-
liVered by him in Logan are both I'M
true The names of the three young men
who drafted this letter and protest appear
among the list of those who signed It,
and during the whole of their lives neith-
er of them has ever once spoken TO Apos-
tie II. j. Grant, or he to them: and, If
placed before that gentleman, we venture
10 say he would not know our name. 1t
was expressly stated in our initial letter
that we did not assume TO speak for any
but Young Utah. ana We demur at the
dragging into this controversy the names
of Mr. Rideout, Apostle Grant Golden
Kimball Mr.. McCune, Judge King or any
other. We are not acquainted with any
of these gentlemen. and object to this
method of evading the real point at issue.
We have repudiated the Tribune as the
organ of Young Utah. and gave our rea-
sons: We renew our protest against it's
managers. for their persistent and ma
licious Misrepresentation.
We assert that the Tribune has SANDER
ed our parents, DETAINED our state, libeIed
our manhood questioned our sincerity,
distorted our motives injured our pros
poets and belted our character.
This Is for the Tribune to consider.
What Mr. Rideout said or did not say. is
quite immaterial to us at this juncture,
as we have no controversy whatever with
that gentleman. 1t is question of colos-
sal impudence on the part of the Tribune
managers. and outraged dignity on the
part of Young Utah. This is the Ques-
ton and we refuse TO be either coaxed
intimidated or driven from 1t.
We are tired of this everlasting, hypo-
critical cant, of those whose virtues-lilse
their authority-are merely assumed. We
point to this very article supposed to be a
nDly 70 ON N
the estimate placed upon Young Utah by
these self-righteous editors OF the Tribune