The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-11-23
THE SCHEMERs UNMAsK.

An excellent view of what tbe church
school supporters mean by nonparti
sansbip" was afforded in the Eoulth
Ward on Wednesday evening. The so
| called nonpartisan convention " to
nominate candidate for member OF
the Board of Education was on The
point of nominating Capt. L.. a. Wedge.
wood, when an astute and rigid church
| partisan demanded to know how the
| Captain stood on the local political sit
| uatIon. No one seemed 10 know, and
1t does not appear TO have occurred to
wItE the business of A nonpartisan con
vcntion If il was in fact nonparti.
san convention and not a sham, what
difference did it make what Capt.
Wedgewood s position is on local poll
tics If he was desirable man TO
have on the school board, as the voters
present fully conceded by their evident
purpose to nominate him, why should
such question have been asked! Much
less, why should the convention have
But the partisan character of the
nonpartisanship in control there was
evident in the fact that no one seemed
to see anything iucongruous i'll Elder
Wells S inquiry. So far from any one
suggesting that this sort of partisan
probing Was altogether out of order in
a nonpartisan convention, every one
there appears TO have considered the
question not only pertinent, but the
core Of the whole matter. No American
must be nominated in this fake non.
partisan. convention.
Accordingly, committee OF two was
appointed TO smoke Capt. .Wcdgewood
out. The process was an unqualified
success. In reply to the question,
How do You stand in relation to the
American party, and the other two po-
litical parties';, Capt. Wedgewood- said
that he is IN sympathy with the Amer
lean cause. That was n settler. But
think Of the absurdity of u ''nonpar-
tisan convention demanding TO know
a prospective candidates 5 political
status! Was ever anything like IL seen
IN the world before? Capt. Wedge
wood S answer should have made no
possible difference IN the attitude of
convention toward him:
but in fact 1T changed altogether. the
of the convention toward him;
he was dropped like a hot potato.
Which was absolute proof that it was
not. IN fact or in the least a uoppar-
JisaI--o convention. - -
The second question asked of Capt.
Wedgcwood was How do YOU stand
on National party lincs?'s Clearly an
lmpertinencc from the nonpsrtisan
for IL could make no pos.
slble difference 10 nonpsrtisaus how he
stood on National party lines. His an
'wcr, however, ought to have been per
fectfy satisfactory, for he said that he
bas not affiliated with either Of the
political parties during the
past Ave years, but that formerly lie
lad. been n Democrat. What more could
4 noupartisan want
To the third question. - How 10 YOU
stand in regard to Superintendent
5hristcnsen7" Capt. Wedgewood said
hat efficiency alone would be consid-
sred by him i'll regard to 2 superintcud-
mt of schools. 1T is difficult TO see
Why this should not have been salts
,actory. Do these partisan nonparti-
ans want some other standard applied?
4 so, what! This question rouscs in
luiry. What. is the reason that Super.
ntendent Christensen s retention was
made an issue. IN this church mon
ARTISAN coDvcntion' Has he done
omothiag for which the church wants
iim rcwarded' Or is he tied up with
Inc church IN obligations that affect
MS work as Superintendent? The ac-
ion uf shat convention in making sun
'ort- OF Mr. Christeusen test OF its
'ariisan requirements, aud refusing TO
ors:dcr IS satisfactory reply that