The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-20

at once. Our article was to fbc point
that the government was sustained, and
that the budget would be re-enncted by
the new House of Commons, in which
case the Lords would hardly dare again
10 oppose it. Il, is true, of course, that
there is talk in England that II will
take more than one election to settle
this question, which may be true; but
we can hardly imagine II settled In any
other way than the government way,
which calls for the taxation of I'M
mense amounts of property held by the
lordly proprietors that has heretofore
been exempt from taxation in ways ex
planned by Mr.. Lloyd-George, snmplc
of which explanation VIC gave during
the pending canvass.
The Smoot paper here, which takes
the side of the Lords against the Com
mons, and against Justice and fairness,
affects to see great discrepancy between
the Tribune editorial comment and its
news columns If il had any idea IN
the world of what il is talking about.
however. il would know that the mis-
print above referred 10 is not really
serious one, since the editorial itself
carried the meaning whereby tho proper
term was evident The Tribune in this
as in other matters stands for the peo-
pie. for Justice, and for right, The
Smoot paper stood for cxclusivencss. for
lordly avariciousness and exemptions
from taxation, while the Lords indulged
in the utmost eXtortion towards those
with whom they dealt and at the Same
time wished to have their property list
ed on n basis of perhaps one fftieth
CON the average) of the basis upon
which they reckoned their money re-
turns. That is. they wished TO pay
speaking generally, about one-fiftieth
the amount of taxes that they onght
Justly to pay in order to support the
government. Their opposition was per
sonal and avaricious. 1t was clear
case of shameful tax. dodging, and they |
were in a position TO make their tax
lodging effective by their votes. The |
election, however, Will give "A very Sc
rous Jolt 10 that sort of selfish, lordly |
autocracy hereafter.
II is evident from the cablegrams |
received that number of other issues
campaign. One of the most serious as
against The government was the charged
of neglect TO keep up the fleet to the
traditional strength of having il equal
in power To any two fleets of foreign
nations Even though the practical i'm
of the two nations next in
power Joining against Great Britain is
evident. still it appears that the con.
at the various British ports
took the so.callcd decay Of the British
navy seriously, and voted against the
government accordingly, Gains of this
kind against the government can not be
counted, however. as gains on the budget
proposition. The losses of the Laborite
also doubtless turned upon
other questions to great extent.
In view of all the points in opposi,
lion brought TO bear against the gov
nrnment in this election, 1t is astonisb
ing indeed TO see it emerge with a
of any kind at its back. It'll
is surprising that the Lords were not
able to make a better showing than
hey did, with all the issues at their
command. Although they themselves
that this election was to
be referendum on the budget, they
ook advantage of every outside prop
,sition to beat the government, ire {
,pcctivc Of the budget. They used their
influence in the various ports of the
against the government on the
argument of a weakened navy. They
lsed in the smaller manufacturing ,
owns all possible influence they could
,riDg 10 bear against free trade, and
or the protection of British industry ,
gaiust the invasion of cheap German
abor, And in all possible ways they
Ised every subterfuge, every leverage,
10 matter of what character, TO protect |
heir selfish interests. This. while pro- !
laiming openly that the election was
o be referendum on the budget. II :
he election could. in fact, have been {
made simply n referendum on the bud !
et, We have not the least doubt but that
he majority of Liberals in the new
arliament would have fully oqualed
he great majority in the parliament
hat has Just past.