The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-11-09
THE NIgLEY SUBTERFUGE.

The letter of Bishop Nibley under.
taking to show the propriety of Smoot
resting his case AS a reply TO the te!o
gram of Bishop Nibley. Apostle Hyrum
NJ, Smith and President Ncphi l..
Morris, on letter that be had written
to President Joseph r. Smith, is
fallacious and weak. He undertakes
10 Justify the reply to Smith by say.
ing that the telegram spoke of what
the church desired. But in a political
sense that itself would be au I'M
propriety. Waving TINT, however,
surely Bishop Nibley could not expect
that reply to President Joseph f,
Smith as head of the church. the let
ter being kept secret. would be re-
ply to political party, The telegram
which he and the others signed had
very much more in it about the peril
TO the Republican party and the ne
cessity in behalf of that party of with
drawing the opposition of the Fed
crul bunch hero against prohibition,
than it had about the church desires
on that question. Following the rca-
souing in Bishop Nibley's letter, one
would have to conclude that in his
opinion Joseph T. Smith is also the
real head Of the Republican party; for
he Iustifies the resting of the Smoot
reply on that letter to Smith because
Smith is tho head of the church, and
the church was mentioned in his teIe-
gram. The same reasoning would
necessarily conclude that Smith is also
the head of the Republican party as
we'll as of The church Still while y
good many may agree with Bishop
Nibley in this position, there are a
good many who do not agree to it.
There arc greot many people in this
State, even members of the Republican
party. who seriously and fully believe
the repeated dcDials of the church be-
ing in politics. and they would resent
the very claim that Nibley appears
TO be making in his letter, that re-
ply TO Smith is also 4 reply to the Re
publican party,
Similarly, the telegram referred TO
had a good deal TO say about the Leg
islature, about the demand Of Che pco-
pie at large for prohibition, and of
the obstacles i'll the way of probibi-
tiou put there by the Federal bunch.
Pursuing the Niblcy reasoning, it is
evident that he considers also that q
reply TO Joseph j. Smith is a reply,
to the Legislature aud TO the Federal
bunch. This latter can very well be
believed; and if Bishop Nibley thinks
that IL was d reply also to the Leg
Islaturc. he merely corroborates tue
view of good many others who con
slder the Legislature to be Smith S
tool. acting on nothing against his will.
holding itself merely subject to his or.
der.
The truth is, that this letter dis
cussed great and burning public ques-
ton, Vt was cited Us the reply TO an
importunatc telegram relating TO that
question There is no reason what
ever TO urge anything in the way of
privacy about that letter, because to
all intcnts and purposes and on every
reasonable view il is public letter,
The mere fact that Joseph +. Smith is
entitled TO his own privacy has nothing
whatever TO do with ease ike this.
He is prominent iu the community,
The letter was sent TO him on a public
question, undoubtedly for at least
semi public use, IL was shown 10 vari-
! GUS persons without any breach of