OCR Text |
Show THE 7 SEARCHLIGHT Opposition to Clark~ exclusively—and Board of Utah Power & Light Company in the capacity of front for Electric Bond & Share Company, to try to give that concern and its illegitimate offspring a little better standing in the community than either would seem to be entitled to. The Searchlight has never attacked the religi- ous beliefs of Mr. Richards—if he really has any. And we now question the motives and sincerity of Ezra T. Benson because, for political reasons, he has condemned Federal subsidies to edly—to teaching their religious principles. Unlike Mr. Clark, they have not participated in unseemly efforts to break down social security, col- lective bargaining, and other protective measures won by the common people. Their obvious respect for their own religion; their unwillingness to put it in an unfavorable light, has won the additional subsidy being a scheme to induce Uncle Sam to pay a substantial part of the cost of growing sugar beets; a cost that the Utah-Idaho and Amalgamated Sugar companies ought to and can pay. We haven’t even considered, nor have we criticised Mr. Benson’s religious beliefs—if he actually has any. We turn now to the other side of the picture to refute any implication or hint that J. Reuben Clark, et al, have been picked on by the Searchlight and singled out for criticism because of their religion. And, in passing, we point out that such an allegation sometimes frightens off criticism and permits men out their per- like Clark to carry nicious schemes without much risk of exposure. or registered a complaint about the methods and activities of David O. McKay, George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Charles Callis, Rudger Clawson, Orson F. Whitney, George F. Richards, and a host of other eminent churchmen lately or currently prominent in this region. Indeed, this peared is the in the indirect first time those Searchlight, reference has been names or that made have any to direct ap- or them. And yet, they are known to be leading members of the same church as Mr. Clark, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Benson, and Stephen L. Richards. If this paper were attacking the religious beliefs of Mr. Clark—which it has not done—it would be obligated to attack all men who hold to similar religious views—which it has not done. There is an excellent reason why those gentlemen escape against Clark. criticism They similar have to that applied directed themselves from tion—not criticism. The Searchlight did not force Mr. Clark into the smudgy arena of reactionary politics, business, and finance. He entered that arena of his own accord, and with his eyes wide cpen. In his attacks on measures that safeguard the well-being of the common people, Clark has not been sparing of ridicule, criticism, and ruthlessness. He has played He has for not high political and economic stakes. scrupled to take every advantage all along the line. He has struck, as from believing that his ecclesiastical position ed him from counter ambush, protect- criticism. He and his satellites have assailed the Presi dent of the United States with ferocity and vin dictiveness on every possible occasion. They have promoted discord when unity was essential. The editorial page of the newspaper they dominate resorts to contemptible jibes at Mr. Roosevelt, his In four years of publication the Searchlight has never once published a word of condemnation, respect for it, and for them, men who have an abiding regard for American traditions of fair play. They deserve commenda- stabilize living costs, but remained silent when the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company tried to wangle an additional subsidy of $1.50 a ton for sugar beets; we believe sincerely and devot- administration, and his family, until many subscribers have sickened at the putrid spectacle. Through one avenue and another Clark exercises tremendous influence in various phases of the social, political, and economic life of this region. Through banks he participates in financial games. Through the Deseret News and KSL his weight is felt in the treatment and dissemination of news. Working arrangements with the Tribune and Tel- epram who nearly always “go along’ with Clark’s projects, give him a stranglehold on news channels in this area. And the combined resources of both parties enable them to lower a propaganda fog on this community that is virtually impenetrable. Through the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company’s avenues; the Utah Farmer; certain “educational” adjuncts; and through numerous other enterprises and individuals such as J. A. Howell of Ogden, a corporation lawyer, Clark controls the political background of the Farm Bureau in Utah. (Continued on following page) Indeed, |