The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-07-18
WHY REFUSE TO ACcoUNT7

From time to time some of our friends
who may still have tenderness TO,
wards the Mormon church, either
through heritage, family ties, or great
magma nimity, have something to say in
favor of that church, in favor of its
leading men, past and present, al
though it is rare indeed to hear any
one say a word in favor Of President
Joseph f. Smith. In fact, his course
is so atrocious, his record so filled
with falsity, pledge breaking and all
perversty, that there appears very lit
tie room for any one to commend him.
He Is an outlaw of TWO worlds, an
outlaw of this world in saying that
he sets at naught the laws of man;
he is an outlaw in the world TO come
in saying that he defies the laws of
Cod and further. that he obeys or
disobeys God at his own pleasure. And
so it is really a hopeless case to try
to say anything in favor of Joseph f.
Smith; yet at long intervals and on
rare occasions there are feeble efforts
in that direction. After all. however,
il comes in his case about TO the same
point as that brought forth by the
old lady whose charitable speech was
everyone's admiration. and who. when
she heard some one saying that she
could probably speak n good word even
for the devil, replied. "Well, / wish
some of us had his energy and per
severance" and that is about all that
could truthfully be said in favor Of
Joseph f. Smith, misdirected, lawless,
selfish, lustful and reckless as his
course is.
But there is one thing upon which
we have never found the least differ
ence of opinion, and that is the right
fulness of every one accounting 10
those from whom he receives money,
for what he does with that money
Even those who would otherwise wish
to say something commcndatory of
Joseph f. Smith, are necessarily silent
when this phase of his character is
presented; when it is recalled that
he receives millions of dollars from
his deluded and robbed followers, and
makes no accounting to them of what
he does with their money. And right
there is the point where universal con-
demnation comes in, 1t is not possible
for anyone to excuse another who re-
ceives large contributions and refuses
to account for them, absolutely refuses
to say what he does with what is con-
tributed
There is only one reasonable assump
tion in such case, and that assump
tion is of universal application. The
one who refuses ia account for money
received from others, intends to steal
that money, and if he is allowed to
continue in his non-accounting, he does
steal it. There is not the least oppor-
tunity to avoid or evadc this propo-
sitIon. Why should a man refuse to
account for money received from others
What sort of argument is possible to
bring forward TO excuse the refusal to
account for money received? There is
absolutely no argument that can apply
in defense of such refusal. The pre-
sumption is not only a proper one, but
il is one of universal application, funda-
mentally and universally true. The
money not accounted for is money
stolen.
The assumption and demonstration go
hand in hand. The tithe money received
by Joseph F. Smith is not accounted
for Therefore, it is misapplied and
- o1ou