The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-02-07
MR.. GOSHEN AT PROVO.

Quite n commotion, it appears, has
been raised in Provo by talk made by
the Rev. Elmer !. Goshen, pastor of the
First Congregational church in Salt
Lake City, last Thursday, at the grad
uating exercises in the Central school
at that place. Mr.. Goshen is reported
as citing the children to historical pre-
ccdcnts Of revolt or revolution brought
on through the discomfort of the masses
of the people at wrong and oppression.
Here is the pith Of DR.. Goshen S of
fcnsc. as reported by a correspondent
of The Tribune. In dwelling on popu-
lar movements to obtain relief from OPP
preslons of various kinds, Mr.. Goshen
said:
You school children probably have
heard of the great reformations OF the
past. such as the French Revolution and
The reformation of Cromwells time. but
II you live for sixty years you VIII see
an even more important revolution in
this country You Will see a succession
of conflicts between democracy and the
special interests; and IN every case de-
mocrary VIII triumph. Some day soon
Utah will become great and wise enough
To select two United States Senators who
will vote for the welfare of the common
people and not for the special interests.
as the present Senators have done in
variaby since they entered Congress.
The sentiment appears to have been
received with great applause by those
who heard it. Among others so APP
plauding. was Mr.. a. o. Smoot, Jr.,
nephew of Apostle Smoot and mem
bcr Of the school board, who was very
enthusiastic in his manifestations of
approval of the sentiment uttered. But
!t appears that the lash of the Fed
eral bunch was applied 10 his back
most severely by James Glove, the post
master of Provo, who is the bunch S
representative there, and who is re-
ported as having called the offend
ing Smoot into his Office at
the Federal building and lecturing
him roundly upon his sin IN applaud
ing such sentiment And the news
paper organ Of the "bunch'' in Provo
made loud wall and protest against
Mr.. Goshen IS expressed sentiment, But
what was Mr.. Goshen to do? He was
speaking to the graduating class OF the
school, In referring TO the studies
which that class had pursued. he men
toned the historic verities in conncc-
tion with the subject Of revolt against
oppression which he discussed. 1t
seems that tho oppressors felt them
selves attacked, and resented Mr.. Go
shen IS sentiments accordingly.
This resentment is in effect plea
of guilt to the charge so often made
and so thoroughly understood in Utah,
that the church and the ''Fedcral
bunch arc riding rough-shod over the
rights of the people in this State. And
the agents in the Senate of those OPP
pressors are carrying out the mandates
of those at home who sent them there,
by fostering tho interests of the railing
classes as against the masses Of the
people.
The church political and commercial
power in Utah is allied closely with the
oppressive interests of the United
States, which arc having things alto
that Smoot obtained the votes whereby
he retained his scat in the Senate by
the nnion Of the church commercial
and political power here with the al
lied interests of the East. In this con
nection it will not he forgotten that
Two years ago Smoot wrote a letter to
President Joseph f. Smith of the Nor
mon church which served to suppress
the prohibition agitation which was
then on so fierce in this State. That
letter has been reported as a protest
OF the liquor interests against prohibi
tion legislation for Utah and remind
er that the liquor interests were al
lied with tEr other interests in retain
ing Smoot In his seat in the Senate
and that it would be breach Of faith
the liquor interests in conjunction with
other interests had united TO serve the
church 5 purpose with respect 10 the
Smoot Senatorship. That is what the
letter is reported TO have contained, and
that will be the Interpretation that
WuSJ necessarily ne put upon III. 1nat
letter has been suppressed, although IL
really belongs to the public, and its
publication has been loudly called for,
since the public has right to know
just what il says. AS long as that let
ter is suppressed, there can he no Just
complaint about the Interpretation put
upon it, as indicated herein.
And so, why should not Mr. Goshen
have made the remarks substantially
as he did? He was talking TO pupils