Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-05-01
sAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
In charge OF \. J. Cooper 90 Geary e.
WHO is RESPONSIBILITY

The non-enforcement Of the ordl-
nances Of this city enacted for the sup
preston of recognized evils, one Of
which is the Sunday liquor-tratIc, Ia a
subject OF common conversation and Is
certainly a reproaoh 10 the municipal
ity, The responsibility for this condition
OF affairs rests undoubtedly uA)n the
executive branch of the city govern
ment This proposition cannot be fair
~ controverted.
Avoiding the main points UNI
der consideration In connection
with this subject, the Salt
Lake Tribune daily endeavors to
make and issue between the News
and Mayor Thompson. and to place 1t
on political grounds, regardless OF the
probability that Its readers may have
some memory. or al least are likely TO
compare It's utterances OF a few days
apart, and so recognize It's habit Of con
tradicting itself whenever II undertakes
m argument. The Tribune .ss-~ges
ground eats It's own words ana ~
pears utterly obllyious TO It's self-ex-
posure, so long as It can take a fling
at the News and mlsrepresent us In
language and purpose.
The Deseret News has not singled
out the Mayor In It's appeals for the ell
forcement Of the city ordinances. but
hos called upon the executive depart
ment as body, including all its aus
thoritles and officers. to perform the
duties required by law and by their
oath OF Office. But seeing that the
Tribune Is 80 determined to thrust the
Mayor forward In this controversy, for
tifying itself. as usual. with SO many
plumbers and wilful untruths, IL becomes
necessary TO place the matter as re-
CARDS that functionary fairly and
squarely before the public His Honor
has only the paper which pre,ends to
be fighting his battles 70 thank for the
prominence thus given him IN this
contention.
II cannot be truthfully disputed that |
the Mayor OF the city stands at the
head OF the executive department. Nor !
will II be denied that the law requires
him to see that the ordinances of the |
city are faithfully executed. And, fur
Their, that his oath Of Office pledges him
90 do this. These points are beyond ref
One OF the city ordinances
forbida the selling or giving away OF
any Intoxicating drink at any time dur
Ing the first day Of the week commonly
called Sunday, on penalty Of fine not
exceeding one hundred dollars, or i'm
prisonment for a period not exceeding
one hundred days. or both such fine and
These provisions are
openly violated and dehed, Upon whom
ioes the responsibility rest for this
state Of affairs?
BY the term executive department.
he Tribune states In one breath IT
'annot mean the Mayor" and In an
'thcr breath declares that the express
ion means "a mean, malignant and
Utterly unwarranted assault upon
iayor Thompson" That Is a sample of
Is consistency. That paper now says.
We pointed out that the executive de-
'artment Of the municipality (speclh.
ally the Mayor had Joined with the |
ouncll in instructng the Chief OF !
'olice to enforce the ordinances. and as
he Mayor had done an that he could.
ven TO the removal Of the chief for 4
incompetence, It was not fair to hold
I'm responsible" Let us see how much
ruth there is in this statement a
In the first place, no such order or d
lstruction or advice from the Mayor D
} the Chief Of Police has yet been t,
rought TO light The Mayor ala not.
stated by the Tribune, join the G,
'uncil in Instructions to The Chief Of Il
olice 10 enforce the ordinances. The n
ny Council instructed the Mayor and b
hief OF Police on that matter, and In A
uded every member OF the council ia al
e resolution Of instructions. So much "a
r that part Of the controversy. OF
But the record Of the proceedings as al
this matter shows. that when the vi
liei Of Police was questioned by the ca
" Council as 10 the closing Of gam on
ing houses. he replied that he haa
ted under the instruction Of the d
ayor and when the question was put ch
him why the saloons could not be lo
'sed up on Sundays under similar an. va
-uctions, he stated that IN leaving an
en- alone he was carrying out the ha
pressed wish and direction OK The co
lyor 20 him. personally" The Chief Is
ted repeatedly, some time ago. when III
Sed why the saloons were allowed to
! their business on Sunday. that the Bu
yor had told him TO ''let them alone" ne
Il becomes necessary. we can bring a
dence that cannot be refuted, TO sta
w that saloonkeepers belonging 10 cen
h political party voted Tor the pres. az
administration, under the promise POI
ie TO them that after the election to
y would not be interfercd with. but 10
lgs would be wide OPEN" We do CTS
assert that these promises were Kin
lie by the Mayor Ia person, but they du,