The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-18
CHURCH ORGAN sQUIRMlNG.

@ The Descrrt News of Wcdnesda,
d evening claimed that Tho Tribune wa
5 sadly of i'm It's dissertation upon tn
Stockade question, lis objection being
Z primarily. TO our statement that tn
e church elected the local ticket las
year. Upon this, the News says 'Th'
church did not elect any ticket, local o'
gcncral.'' We do not understand how
the News expects TO make anybody be
licvc such a denial as that, the eNl
denccs Of last fall are so fresh in the
public mind, and are recalled so easily
: when the matter comes up, that the
church. as a church, acted politically
through and by its stake presidents, as
such stake presidents. And the church
through those officials, supported pow
erfuly, the "Republican' ticket last
fall. These stake presidents had po'
litical meeting rs stake presidents,
which was openly reported upon by
President Nephi l.. Morris. these stake
presidents assuming that, rs matter
of course. the voters would obey their
counsel in the matter of voting. one
of those Stake presidents, as MIR. Nor
rls reported, was in favor of throwing
fine church vote 10 the Democratic
ticket; this one never doubling that the
vote would go as they counseled; and
neither did any of the other presidents
have pnr doubt. The other four, how
ever were against that one, and so all
agreed TO throw the church vote TO the
q Republican, ticket. And so earnest
were these stake presidents IN that po-
litical church work, that they de-
nounced any voter who would not vote
according to their counsel as "a traitor
to his church, The result Of this
powerful church "pull'' at the election
was the Mormon vote arrayed soldly
! for the Republican ticket, according
to the counsel of the stake presidents.
And this, too, is public notorlety. What
the church organ expects TO gain by
denying this, we cannot see. The sub
terfuge of the News is that ''some
leading Church men, as American citi-
Zens, took an active part III the cam
paign. in defense of the Church and
American principles as 1t was their
duty to do Which, Of course, is
complete gIve-away on the question,
and refutation of the News. when 1t
claims that those leading church men
as related, took part simply as "Amer-
lean citizens They acted entirely,
solely, avowedly, and officially as
church officials They did this, too,
openly; their political activity was in
their ecclesiastical capacity; there was
no denial Of this at the time. but an
open avowal of it; and no denial can be
made now.
When the News undertakes TO make a
plea that The Tribune contradicts itself
when II says that the church elected
the officials and then that the church
authorities elected them, its point is
so gauzy that few will be able to see
it. The attempted distinction between
the church and the church authorities
is too thin to hang a peg on.
The News finally concludes that it is
not the sheriff that is obligated to
abate the evil Of the Estockade - But
court. An injunction of the court is
out, and il is his business to see that
this injunction is obcyed. This is so
plain case that there is no way to
dispute it. We have fortified our
position in this by citing the case oC the
Chattanooga sheriff whom the United
States Supreme Court has disciplined
even though it had no process out di
rcctcd to him; and another case, where
the Alabama Supreme Court disciplined
the sheriff at Mobile for neglect of
duty. even though no process was di-
rccted TO him. The responsibility of
the sheriff as executive officer of the
court, is fully established, and it is use
less to argue about IT,
The News further says: "Whcn the
Sheriff first intcrfercd for the purpose
OF cleaning up Commercial street, The
Tribune, fguratively speaking, jumped
all over him, for interfering with the
police or course this is not in the
cism Of the sheriff for interfering with
the police, though his act may have
been quito unnecessary. Our criticism
of the sheriff was that he did not clean
up Commercial strcct-not that he did.
For he did not clean il out; and what
We criticised him for, was because he
ousted the demi-monde from tho houses
owned by the Gentics and did not in
tcrferc with those domiciled in houses
owned by Mormons. He left tho latter
undlsturbed, showing sectaran bias and
favoriism in this respect, that WAS al
together unworthy of a public official
II is singular indeed that the News so
habitnally and universally misstates and
twists every proposition on this mat
ter, as well as in general. when it is
in controversy with The Tribune
To our statement about the church
power in this matter, and The ability