The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-05-21
THE SQUIRMING BOOTH.

Hellol Hcrc's u. S. Attorney Booth
out again with his musty old saw that
The Tribune sis n scurrilous. lying,
slanderous. backbiting sheet, Impossible
to be believed, - and trying to convey
the Impression that Attorney General
Wickershum had the imbccile mcn-
dacious backguardism to say So But
as 10 that, we leave the matter between
Booth and his superior. caring nothing
about snch idiotic frcth no matter
from what source il comes. The fact
is that The Tribune is the leading pa,
per OF Utah in every respect. Its can
dor trnthfulness. and courage are not
open 10 question.
But what was it that stirred Booth
up in his bile to the extent that he
took over a column of big type in his
sheet to "vindicate' himself, and in.
cidcntally to lie about The Tribunc'
Merely brief comment that We made
on the reluctant, imbecile, and dishon.
est manner in which he conducted the
Hanson trial. This imbecility was
two of the counts, that "the evidence.
rs far as TO these counts, showed that
the codnts were not So drawn as to per
init of verdict of guilty The u. s.
Attorney (Booth) drew those counts
His only refuge. therefore. is a choice
between Incompetence and dishonesty.
He appears anxious to choose the lat
ter, since he pleads that ''thcre is no
statute covering the alleged offense,'' -
which is not the way the court put it;
but which. if true as put, could hardly
have been unknown to the U. S. At.
torney when be put those counts in his
indictment. Why. then. were they put
inf Undoubtedly for dishonest pur-
pose. TO help break down the case
against Hanson. Very likely they were
put in for a double purpose: lmme.
date. as a starter for the crumbling of
the case in the Federal court: and later,
as the foundation for a plea in the
State District Court. where Hanson has
still to face trial. that he has already
been put in jeopardy on those counts,
and therefore cannot arain be put on
trial upon them.
We do not believe (and a good many
others share our disbelef) that Booth
had the least intent TO convict Hanson.
We said so right after the trial, and
we say so today.
with regard to the coal land cases.
which Booth with fatutous folly has
brought up, there is this to sav: He
as attorney for certain of those who
made the alleged fraudulent coal en-
tries, assured his clients that it was
safe and legal for them to make those
entries. Afterwards when he had been |
appointed Z. S. Attorney, he could |
hardly be expected TO use much zeal in |
those frauds. The result |
justified the natural expectations; the |
eases were dragged around in the courts |
for some time, and then dismissed as
also were the indictments; the Utah |
Fuel company was allowed TO buy l440
acres Of coal lands worth S5,OOO,000. for |
100000, and was fined $4,000; no land |
at all being recovered. Other cases in |
rolvlng coal lands in Carbon and Emery |
counties were also dismissed. The whole |
proceeding was a fZzle. Attorney Gen.
,ral Wickersham surely was mislcd by |
Booth and brought into discredit as TO
,hcse cases. And we gladly accord to
Booth any credit that he can get out
# those proceedings, we holding him
10 have been the devil in the machine !
Ill through.