Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-03-30

may state your own case | quote your
version OF the matter from your editor
ial In the Saints Herald" OF the 18th
OF March, 1901. as find that what you
say In explanation Is fuller there than
In your letter TO me.
"The speech from which It is claimed
these obnoxious paragraphs were re-
ported was delivered in Farwell Han,
Chicago, Illinois, February % 1882,
meeting over which Hon. G. III. Cation
presided.
I'm one part Of that speech | was
showing to the audience the fact that
the United States census gave 10 the
population OF Utah an excess1of males at
manageable ages that this condition
OF difference In population was natures
physical protest against plural mar
rage, From this | argued that when
one man married two, there was one
man deprived Of his chance for a COM
panion II he married three, then two
men were so deprived. that for each
wife man took in excess Of one, some
other man was deprived OF his opportu-
nifty to marry. As an item Of evidence
! stated that while ! was in Utah In
1875, met an unmarried man some
thirty-nlne years old, who I'm reply TO
my question why he had not married,
stated he did not know where TO so
and get wife. In my ramble that
morning had seen az a farmhouse near
the confines OF the city Of Salt Lake.
number Of young women seemingly
from fourteen 10 twenty-five or more
years Of age. | suggested to him that
man ought 20 be able TO find a wife
there. and that there must be many
such places In the Territory. To this he
replied. Eyes. that may be. but suppose
] should go there to seek a wife, I
might be told that the Young women
We're not at liberty to marry" He said
that II was not easy IN find young mar
riageable women who were not already
married into pOlygamous families. or
were bespoken for some Bishop
u used no language on that occasion
rejecting upon the virtue Of the women
In Utah. I only stated what was told
In conversation upon the subject in
question. The man himself used no
coarse or unbecomlng language He
simply stated what to him was a condl.
ton. He further stated that he was not
alone In being unmarried, but there
were hundreds like him IN this respect
IN the Territory, and presumably for
the same reasons"
The version given by the Chi
cago papers and your own are
here placed before those who
may read this correspondence and
they Will form their own conclusion as
to where the truth stands, for they
viii have the facts before them as
clearly as ! have But remembering
the substance of your Chicago speech
as reported through the press Of the
country, when challenged 10 prove
statement | had made IT was perfectly
competent for me to quote the reported
speech containing the Islander and
which, so far as knew had never
been denied or corrected by you.
And now a word as 10 your dsclaim-
er and the whole course you have taken
with reference 20 this business. You
say you were misrepresented in what
you said by the Chicago papers, and by
that Misrepresentation was made 20 ap-
pear as vicious and wicked slanderer
Of an entire peonle: a SANDER so vile
that you yourself say now that had you
used The language referred to" YOU
long since would have "apologized 70
the women In Utah in some manner
sufficiently public TO have reached them
at least those In public life-as an
apology would have been, due them"