The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-10-27
DARE SMooT FACE RoBERTs7

in response to the ineXcusably false
and dirty personal raid made upon Roo
crts in Smoot s paper.
Elder Roberts wrote TO james II
Moylc, chairman Of the Democratic
State committee, a letter reviewing ccr
tain points of the political situation III
utah, especially as between the Demo
crats and Republicans, scorchingly
adverse to the latter, but particularly
to their party leaders. This drew forth
from the Smoot paper the bitter and
violent assault referred TO upon Elder
Roberts.
Now Chairman Moylc writes letter
10 Elder Roberts, asking him whether
or rot he feels disposed TO reply to
the Smoot assault upon him. To this
Elder Roberts replies that he docs not
care TO enter into a controversy with
the newspaper, but if Smoot will as
sumo responsibility for the editorial
and adopt it as his answer to the Rob
erts letter, Roberts will and does chal-
lcngc Smoot 10 series Of coujoint de-
bates upon ''all tho issues touched
upon in his letter and the editorial in
the Smoot paper. But if Senator Smoot
declines tho challenge TO debate, for
any reason, but will say that be as
sumcs full responsibility for all the
matters IN the aforesaid editorial, and
accepts it as his answer TO the Rob
erts letter, then Roberts will take the
| stump as soon as appointments can be
made for him, and will canvass the
State as far as possible on the issues
presented in his letter and the Smoot
reply.
Here is d straightforward PROPOSE
| tion to Smoot. He is invited TO say
| first, whether he assumes OF evadcs re.
sponsibility for the bitter attack upon
Roberts in Smoot s paper, and accepts
it as his own reply TO the Roberts let
ter: and second. whether ho is will
ing to maintain that position in debate
As to the matters personal TO Mr..
Roberts contained in that vitupcrative
reply TO bim in the Smoot paper, The
Tribune, as il has announced hereto
fore. does not assume TO fight Mr.. Rob
erts S battles. But there was one allu-
sion TO Roberts in that letter which
brings UP a matter SO prominent in
this State and of such wide and keen
interest in all Utah, that we referred
to 1t in an editorial Tuesday morning,
and viii refer to it briefly again. That
allusIon was where the Smoot paper
said, Just after referring to Messrs.
Smoot, Sutherland and Howell, "Nono
OF these men have broken the laws
Of his country or is today living in
violation of those laws. -
Here is direct and well understood
rcforcucc to the polygsmods relations
OF Elder Roberts. Roberts. it appears,
is denounced by the Smoot paper and
perhaps by Smoot himself, for break
ing. the laws Of his country aud living
IN defiance of them in the matter of
polygamy. This dcnuuclation evident.
ly is because Elder Roberts is a Demo
crat. There has been DO dcnunciation
by Smoot of any Republican who has
broken tho laws of his country and
is living in violation of them. But. us
we have said heretofore, this is mat
ter that is not susceptible OF "divisiou
on party lines There is no law Of
this country. or Of this State, that con
demns Democrat for violating the
anti-polygamy law or living in polypa-
nous relations that does not equally
condemn Republican who does the
same thing
me Smoot paper, perhaps with the
suggestion or approval of Smoot makes
tins charge against Elder Roberts. But
# 1T Is making this charge al all, why
is ii not made against others who also
are equally guilty with Elder Rob.
crts! Surely it cannot be that Smoot
expects to withdraw the polygamous
privilege from Democrats and accord
il to Republicans. If so, hero il a
new division that the people of this
State have not heretofore been con
frontcd with. Let us have the facts
and the truth as to this whole matter.
without evasion or falsehood 1t would
appear that Elder Roberts bad this in
MAD when in his challenge to Smoot
ne refers to call the issues raised -
Here is something that altogether
transccnds mere party lines If there
is to be division such as is suy-
gested on the reading of the Smoot cdi.
torisl, and Democrats are TO be de
nounccd for violating laws against
polygamy and living in polygamous 70.
lations, while Republicans arc to be
excused in doing the same thing. then
surely it is time that the people of this
State were waking up to this new view
of the case.
We trust that Elder Smoot may see
his way clear TO a discussion OF the
issues in the campaign with Elder Rob.
erts, aud especially Of this new issue
that his own paper has raised. 1t
would be mighty interesting debate
II it could be arranged; but we have
very serious doubts whether Smoot will
dare to face Elder Roberts.