The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-07-21
THE UTAH EDITORS.

The Utah editors did we'll at their
annual meeting and outing when they
refrained from censure of Judge Lewis
in his contempt Judgment against the
Smoot paper. We say this because the
case is yet In court, undetermined, on
| appeal; and also because 1T was so
feebly and contemptibly presented in
court by the so-called attorney in
behalf of the paper, that no precedent
could possibly lie in whatever determi-
nation may be reached. There is not
the least danger of the suppression of
free press in any such procedure as
this. The danger OF such suppression
is much more imminent in quite an
other direction, that of the ecclesiastical
power. In fact, the ecclesiastical grip
is even now upon tho throats of most
OF the editors of Utah papers. This is
true to such an extent that 1t is re-
voting to see how they treat matters
of public interest.
We Will cite a case of recent occur.
renee. George D. Casio wrote some
letters from Preston, Idaho, which were
published in The Tribune, and which
were hostile to George c. Parkinson,
president of the Oneida stake. Later
on, Parkinson mred Caste into retired
place, and, aided by a big husky.
chokcd and tortured him for hours, to
compel him TO retract what he had
written and denomce it as untrue. This
enforced retraction was printed in the
churchthrottled newspapers of Utah as
a complete vindication of Parkinson,
not only as to the matters charged by
Casio, but also as to the charges
brought against Parkinson as a swim
dler and thief in his active Oneida irri-
cation ditch rascalities, charges and
presentations with which Caste had
nothing whatever TO do, and which he
could not possibly rctract And yet,
because 1T was assumed that the church
tyrants would be pleased to have the
matter treated that way, the Utah
newspapers generally copied Caste s en-
forced retraction, wrung from him by
torture, as complete refutation of all
even of charges made direct by The
Tribune, and not by him.
1T is such things as this, constantly
occurring. that Justify charges of con
troll of the press in Utah by the church.
And they are justified. Tho trucking
OF that press to the ecclesiastical rulers.
ITS base subservience, not even waiting
for orders. but eager to anticipate what
these orders might be and speak accord
ing, Justly condemns that press In
short, to use an old formula, the church
papers seem eager TO make the will of
the authorities their pleasure -
1t Is that sort of thing, that mean
subservience to ecclesiascal tyranny,
which IS the real muzzle on the press
of Utah. 1t is that which DESTROYS the
freedom of the press in this State, and
makes the actions and expressions of
the press here so contemptible We
say that the press which is thus subser-
went, thus crlnging, thus eager TO serve
the church authorities even before their
desire is expressed, is. appropriately
called the church press. 1t is the church
press because 1T is the slave Of the
church. and that slavery it is which
crushes ont, so far as it is thus subser-
Went TO the church orders. dreading
the displeasure of the petty priestly
tyrants, the freedom Of the press of
Utah. The newspapers of the State have
little TO fear from the courts, but all
to fear from the church. This is a
condition well known to all Of them.
and to those who supported the resolu~
tion of censure against Judge Lewis no
less than TO others. The real crusher
out of free press in Utah must not
be pushed into obscurity in favor of a
mock scare about a peril that does not
exist.
p. S.-Suppose that it had been The
Tribune that was found in contempt of
court; would any such resolution have
been proposed In this meeting of Utah
editors? If not why not? And if not,
ic fbo Di,,1a Of e-fn lfoo