The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-08-14
a happy New Year. I am, yours very
truly w. NJ M'CARTY'
playing Fast and Loose"

happy New Year. I am, yours very
truly w. NJ. mccarthy
"PIaying Fast and Loose"
ION December %, 1906, you seemed fear
full that some Mormon would get the Of
flee of postmaster to the scandal and sor-
row of the straight Gentle Republicans
and the joy of the American party while
on May 70. 1906, what you call your soul
was Mortified at the idea of some Nor
mon being turned down upon the ground
that he was Mormon. If your first let
ter does not advocate the appointment of
a Gentle as postmaster on the ground
that ne is a Gentle and the turning down
OF Mormon on the ground that he is a
Mormon and wholly as a matter of polit-
zeal eXpediency, il is meaningless If Won
meant what you said then, had you over
looked the constitution and forgotten
about the basic principles of the govern
ment' which You suddenly recalled when
you fdncled you saw an opportunity 10 put
me in a false position or were you simply
playing fast and loose with your own
opinions all the way through?
so much for that
when L received and read your letter
of March 80, which you have now pub
llshed, | felt outraged at what | con-
sldered Its gratuituous and studied insO-
lence. There had been nothing in our
previous relations that | was aware Of
certainly nothing in our prior correspond
ence-thdt would justify the sending Of
such letter. The letter which | had
written you about Captain Hobbs, and
winch you were OSJenSlhly answering was
hank but entirely respectful and / sub
nit to any unprecedented reader that this
letter OF yours was wholly without eX-
cuse or proVocation. | could not reply 10
IT except in terms which | did not care
TO use TO any one holding the exalted Of
flee which you hold or without seeming
to recognize your right TO have an insult
ing letter answered at ALL and / therefore
put it in the waste basket as being the
only fitting and Self-respecting disposi-
ton could make of it. The letter was
so evidently written with labOred effort
so filled with carefully prepared insults
that l was sure you intended it for pub
licatl0n from the first, and that If an eX-
cuSe did not present itself, you would
manufacture one. which you have now
done. This excuse seems 10 be that Writ
lent attacks are being made upon you in
connection with the Breeden-SDrv-Howe
episode and III connection with your visit
to Colonel Nelson of the Tribune. l say
to you once for ell that l have never had
the slightest thing 20 Go with these at
tacks nor the circumstances which led to
them You seem to have a mania on the
subject of my responsibility for what 9TH
er people say about you.
Responsibility Is Disclaimed.
Your last letter to me makes similar
assertions, which / answered as follows.
and which l now repeat:
July 10, 1905.
Hon. William NJ. McCarty. city. My
Dear Sir:
Il am in receipts Of your letter hear
ing date the 23rd ult., which has been
forwarded to me from Washington In
reply TO that portion of il which is per-
sonal TO yourself permit me to say:
1 have no interest, direct or Indirect
in the publication called Truth" and
have had no more to do with its state
ments respecting you, or. indeed any
other matter, than you have had your
self. Your reference to the paper as my
personal organ is wholly unwarranted.
because wholly unfounded in fact. And
l know Of nothing which could properly
give rise to such an idea in your mind
1t is likewise absolutely untrue that I
have ever sent any person or intimated
a desire to any person TO malign or spea
Ill of you or anyone else, or that any
person, or any clique or faction or pub
LEGATION is authorized to speak for me in
any manner whatsoever Whatever I
may have to say about anybody or any
thing l say personally and take the re-
sponsibility for il. and YOU nor anyone
else can truthfuly say that l have ever
carried on a political or other contest
except in the open l am not response
bic and decline to be held responsible for
what anyone except myself may say about
you or anybody else. 1t is quite true that
your letters about Thomas and Hobns
were within my general invitation TO write
me with reference to any such matters,
and they were answered, l think, with
courtesy and prOmptness. II is, however.
not true that copies of any answers were
sent TO OTHERS, except iudI OHS copy VI
one letter was sent to one man, not 10
be shown to others, nor with the Sugsts-
ton that 1t should be shown but for
different purpose entirely, which you arc
at liberty to know if you have any Curl
Osity on the subject
You seem to have written under some
stress of feeling. oceasioned by an at
tack upon you which you consider unjust,
ard / therefore ignore for the present
certain insnuations contained in your let
ter which / should otherwise resent.
do not answer them. and ] did not reply
to a former letter of yours because. with
out desiring to be offensive. but only to be
candid, could not understand upon what
heory you conceived il 10 be your bust
ness to write me as you did, and therefore
Continued from Page 2.