The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-05-28
SOME ANswERs-AND QUESTIONS.

retreat from its admission that the
American party is not responsible for
! the ''red light district Last night
IT showed decided symptoms Of remorse,
and reiterated practically its old and
raise charge. In returning to the
charge, the organ asks the following
speclhc questions, which we will answer
hs squarely and directly as they are put.
G) Did, or did not a gentleman in the
| confidence OF American" party leaders
90 TO Ogden during the first American
dunlinlStratlon 10 negotiate with th"
s'oGEale woman for the establishment OF
similar infamy here with the indorsc-
ncnt OF the Mayor or Council9 (2) Did.
| or did not. an american" chief Of police
! publicly recommend the dedication OF
| (3l Diu or did not. another American
| official give the plan his Endorsement"
| lil mas thc American police depart
ment. after the vigorous protests of the
| public. done anything at all to close the
| cribs. or has that department. in viola
non OF la%, aided the owners OF the
Stockade In procuring inmates? (5)
| Finally. has The Tribune, which claims
| to speak for the American party. had
ono word Of protest against the establish
ment OF the stockadc except under mu
niclpal ownership? 90 Has 1t had word
OF rebuke for the party leaders who are
responsible for the infamy? 90 Has It
lection OF The courts against the Infamous
conspiracy for the purpose of establishing
a monopoly IN prostituton'
CD Not that we ever heard Of,
% Yes; and The Tribune promptly
denounced the proposition.
(3) We think not, officially; but
one of them was quoted TO tha;
effect in the newspapers.
(4) The American police department
IS of course vigilant in the enforcement
OF the law in this matter; and il has
certainly not aided the owners Of the
stockade in procuring inmates. But
the whole matter is taken out of the
hands of the police, by the order of the
court, which has taken special juris.
dictlon of the case, and issued an IN.
junction thereon. directed 10 the Shcr-
iff, who is the officer relied upon by
the court 10 enforce its order forbid
ding the vice usually attendant upon
the cred light district" to be prac-
ticcd there
(5) Certainly il has; il has always
held such TO be wholly immoral and
illegal, and the American party has cx-
pressly condemned it.
CO.. The Tribune denies the responsi.
blllty of any party leaders in this mat.
ter. IT condemned the first suggestion
Of such a district rcbukcd the Official
who recommended it, and will condemn
at any and all times any one who
makes himself responsible for such an
infamy.
(D 1t has; and it has pointed out
the effective course TO pursue by pro.
ceedings in contempt of court course
which now seems TO he favored by those
in charge of the prosecution. though for
while weaker prosecutions under the
statutes appeared to be in favor.
And now that the church organ has
kindly suggested these questions to The
Tribune. it will no doubt take equal
pleasure in answering a few for us.
Does the News think that men who
pledge their honor for the obedience of
themselves and their people TO
the law, are justified in breaking
that pledge, "'taking their chances - Of
punishment by the law?
Does it think that a pledge made
should be violated in It's plain terms.
if technical excuse can be made for
breaking it7
Does IT believe it right for ccclesiasts
to use their church positions to per.
suade, coercc or tcrrorizc voters into
Ini al 4
assurances have been made that the
church and state are Of right and in
fact entirely separated
Does it consider that the showing
of complete submission to the aw.
made in Congress by the church TO OBJ.
tain the restoration TO the church of
ITS cscheated property. should he lived
up to IN letter and spirit, or evadcd
whenever possiblcl
Does it think it right TO accept
protIered amnesty, and disregard the
conditions upon which that amnesty was
extended?
Does il think hat thc law Of 1896.
legitimizfng children born in polygamy
up to January lst of that year, meant
anything9 If so. what7
Does it think that the repeated
pledge that voters were free TO seek
their own political affiliations, was fully
kept or shamcfully violated. by tho
admissions OF the f'political mani
festo' of April, 1896, which stated that
church authorities had gone through
the settlements and "counseIed' the
brethren to divide, not on their con
victions or principles, but on the basis
of an equal division of the votes? Is
il not plain that this sort of counsel
WAS direct and shameful invasion of
the voters rights. and has it not had
the effect of leaving the church authori-
ties in absolute control of the politics
and civil affairs Of Utah by leaving
them sufficient controlled votes to sway
elections as they choose?
Finally, why does the News persist