Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-08-29
FRowN IT DowN!

We notice IN the press dispatches to
northwestern papers conveying the
news OF the nominations by the Repub-
lcan State convention held IN this city,
that It Is stated that Charges that
Church influence was being used In be-
half OF Mr.. Cutler we're freely made by
the adherents Of Governor Wells ana
Mr., Hammond"
We were In hope that this hackneyed
and silly charge would not figure In tho
political contests OF the present year.
not only because there is nothing in II
but an echo OF past bitterness and
ohagrin but because nearly everybody
here is ashamed OF 1t and knows It's ut
ter untruth and vapld imbecility No
matter what side or what candidate
went down to defeat, for many years
the cause Of It was attributed 10
"Church influence" And yet there
was nothing specific and definite
brought forward in support OF the
hlmsy excuse for the failure OF the
confident predictions OF victory.
We would like to obtain some lnfor-
nation which can be reasonably viewed
as evidence, that any other Influence"
than that usual In struggles for place
and the success OF candidates, was
brought to bear in reference 10 the
nomination for the Goyemorship last
Thursday. Also to learn what ia really
meant by the convenient yet somewhat
ocult phrase, Church influence" There
were many rumors more or less indef-
mite that money was being used TO ef.
feet the nomination of certain candi-
date, but these did not materialize into
facts sufficient TO constitute a clear
case, still less did there appear any
reason TO raise the cry of Church in
fluence' In behalf Of the opposing cam
dldate. But now that the struggle, so
far, is over. we hear the old echo rum
bling over the wires and sounded In the
columns OF the distant press.
Now, what do these disgrunted and
disappointed partisan workers mean by
Church influence IN politics." Let us
have clear definition Of the term.
Does Il mean that the Mormon"
Church as religious body Issued an
edict or formulated a policy or tick
and how was II done? II that Is not
meant, what is? Are we TO understand
that It is claimed that the First Presi-
dency Of the Church, who direct It's
affairs. have dictated directed, advised,
oounseled or forbidden or prevented the
domination of any individual OF indi-
yduas by the members Of the Church?
II that is the charge what proof Is
there Of any such attempted control In
politics. Who has received direction
concerning It? Let US have the facts
and the names and the substance OF the
Influence" used.
Everybody acquainted with the atu-
tude OF the presiding authorities in
these matters knows that they have
so determinedly abstained from inter-
ference therein, that they would not
offer suggestion or express an opln-
ion as 10 the candidates, even when IL
was sought by persons anxious 20 OBJ
tain their views. Now observe, we do
not admit for moment that those gen
tlemen have not just as much right as
any other citizens. influential or other.
wise, to entertain and express a pre-.
ference for candidate for public Of
fee and an objection or aversion for
others We simply assert that they
have Kept silent as to the contest that
has been waged aud that no man has
been ordered or advised to cast his vote
or use his Influence on either side, II
anybody can adduce evidence to the
contrary. let II be brought forward
without hesitation or delay, II this
cannot be done, let the cowardy lnsln-
uations and the Impudeut falsehooda be
ailenced, or condemned by every decent
citizen,
II neither the Church as a body nor
It's Presidency as It's head is meant.
What is the Church influence held up
as scare or cited as cause for VIC
tory or defeat? There were prominent
men in the Church on either side Of the
latest political contention. They avow~
ed their predictions openly. They did
not work In the dark They did not act
in an ecclesiastical position, but ex-
erclsed their undoubted rights as free
citizens. They worked diligently for
their respective candidates The results
showed this The successful candidate
received 239 votes and his chief oppo-
nent POI votes after as lively and de-
termined a contest as was ever waged
In convention, Was the Church fight
ing against the Church? II so did the
Church win or lose? Why not use a
little ordinary sense and drop the silly
and offensive echo2
But n prominent Church men Interest
themselves IN these political scrim-
images, does Il not open the way for
the claim OF Church lnnuence?' Not
II they simply use the same kind Of
arguments and methods az those Of
other citizens. II any one OF them has
pretended tina he was acting under &C.
cleslastlcal Authority, and has required
another person to vote as he dictated,
let the case be named We affirm that
nobody In the Church has received au-