The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-18
APOSTLE GRANTS TALK
1t Is Criticised Severely by the
Salt Lake Tribune.
STATEHOOD BY FRAUD
Tribune Intimates That the Apostle and
His Colleagues Are Not True to
Their Promises Grant Bit
terly Arragned.

The interview with Apostle Heber J..
Grant of the Mormon church. and the
report of his last Sundays lecture,
published in the Standard, have Great
ed some discussion in Salt Lake. A
large portion of the Standards article
is given place in the Desert News, the
Mormon paper, and the Tribune has
commented editorially on the state
ments made by the apostle.
Wednesdays Tribune contains the
following editorial
1T seems that Apostle Heber J.
Grant has been repeating his Logan
harangue with embellishments at Ana
conda, Mont. He had not a thing in
the world to do with Roberts nominal
ton, he spoke but once during the con-
vention and that was aswhisper to Mr..
Moyle. He did not fit from seat to
seat; it was just harmonious univer-
sal uprising, SO to speak, which nomi-
mated Roberts. True, Roberts had
dropped out of sight and almost mem
DRY as a democrat. When his name
was spoken in the Wigwam it was as
the dead are spoken of; when the
HdlHeS pL lIlP lditIluI were CdliSd oNSi,
that of Roberts was no more found on
the shining scroll, but then Heber ].
had nothing to do with his resurrec-
ton, not bit of it, he did not, to be-
lieve him, even touch the button and
have the convention do the rest. But
there is no evidence that Heber was in
the least surprised when Roberts was
nominated. If he felt any astonish
ment, SO schooled Is he to conceal his
emotions that he did not give himself
away. ~.
He tells how one of his children was
cured of supposed fatal case of diph-
iberia after the physicians had given
up the case; cured by the laying on of
the elders hands but he saw no mi
racle in the Roberts nomination,
though it fulfilled all the conditions of
the old maxim, Tt Is the unexpected
that happens Speaking as one of
the chief opponents of the latest pat
ented religions, Heber ]. Grant strug-
gled to convince his audience that Rob-
erts was nominated simply because he
was a democrat, and that no prjestly
influence was used to compass that re-
suit. Now if the speaker had not been
an apostle, had he been just common
sinner. when he said that he would
have been lying: because he fixed dele
gates enough before the convention
met to insure that nomination, and
we believe that in SO doing he but car
ried out a contract which he made with
Roberts to induce him to make his sur
render to the church three years be-
fore. r.
Grant says the Tribune is respon-
sible for stirring up that agitation. He
does us too much honor.i+ Why did he
not state that the nomination was so
bitter a pill for Gentiles to swallow
that he had to read the riot act to the
democratic organ here to keep it from
stirring up that same storm? He says
that we knew that Roberts was living
with the same three wives when he was
before a candidate, and that we sup
ported him. Of course he has got that
all iumhled. We never supported him.
He was the democratic candidate. But
we did not oppose him because he was
polygamist. We thought he had
come within the laws. Does he forget
that Governor Wells declared, in reply
to Roberts furious answer to his The
alter speech, that he did not know of
Roberts perfidy at that time?
But why thresh old straw with an
adversary so INSCRIPTIONS? An idea
of him can be formed by his state
ment that it has ever been the gem
eral opinion and belief in Utah that
those who had plural wives prior to
1890 might be allowed to support and
denied either that right or duty? But
was it expected that within three
years after statehood was granted 1000
polygamous children would be born,
that apostles and bishops would be TAX
ing more plural wives and that Apostle
Heber J. Grant would be boasting that
he was a law-breaker and determined
to continue to be? If SO why vas the
law passed making all children bern
to plural wives legitimate up 10 a GER
| tain date? Why was the law raised
| making unlawful coha bitation a mis-
| demeanor?
WAS the late President woodruff
serious when, under oath, he explained
the meaning of the manifesto? And
| if there had been deliberate purpose
| way would Apostle Heber J. Grant
| have proceeded different from what he
| has?"
| On Thurday the following appeared
in the same papers editorial column:
1--WE are glad that when Apostle
| Heber J. Grant told the people Of Mon.
tana that the Mormons supplied Il hat
TALON in the Mexican war that ne die
not put it in the old way. 1t used ii
be that when the people We're driver
almost to despair, with a hostile cum
try behind them and only red sa. ages
| in front, the American government
| compelled them to furnish battalion
| of their youngest and strongest men t.
go to war That is the way II neat
to be stated, the object being to prove
| that the government of the United
| States was among the most brutal ant
| cruel in the world"
New line of 5c 10c 15c 20r and OH