| OCR Text |
Show "TJ1E TR111UXE" vs. "FARE-WKLL" "FARE-WKLL" ICorreiiiondenco of the Heiuld.) Editors Salt Lak Herald: I was absent from the city when my etter about tba Utah election law, io reply to ChiDg Foo, appeared io yot r oalumns. Id consequence of the epizootic epi-zootic and weather too heavy diseases to euro my mail forwarded was not received until to-day, when, by the kindness of a friend, I obtained a clipping from the Tribune, beiog an atsempt at a reply to my little say. I ought to feel flattered, my dear sir.-?, that my barbed-shaft struck and wounded two men instead of one. I didn't mean it so, but it was a loop shaft, a column and a half long and it ought to do some execution when civeu with such truthful cim. But I don't feel flattered after ail, for the j iDie Bhot is not worth the powder.and these little things are great to iiitb men. However, I had better say a few words to the Tribune editor, cr he might think he vanquished me bj his words. But yet there is nothing worth while striking at, and as the Yankee said, "it hurts a fellow to knew nothing." So lar as my sqoibbing his pat coi-respondept, coi-respondept, aEd my intense personality are concerned, I have to say that I don't know the heathen Chinee referred re-ferred to ; atd I remember the old paymg of scriptnra, I think to "answer a fool according io bis folly," and that other sajinin the same book, "answer net a fool according to his folly." As I had the same kind of "critter" to atia:k in either piece of advice Ictoie my own way, and preferred pre-ferred the ibraer ; nor did I ask the editor of tlac sheet what to say, or how to say it, I think he championed his champion cham-pion Ching Foe as well as he could, and after all leaves him "to take care of himself" very ungrateful. But the editor mast be quite "'opaque" not to understand the matter more clearly. 1'hat same paper pretends to be very "conservative," and yet it will engage one of its crack correspondents to issue such Ln.euage about an innocent, re publican iaw, as to characterize it as "such a jlagrant outrage being pcrpc-1 pcrpc-1 trated uj on American soil," and he j would diiuci lu i ihc attention of numbers of congress who ought io shudder at the idea of it," even! Now, sir, when a man uses such strong language ho ought to show some reast n lor his expressions; but he does not cvtn attempt it. Ho publishes the law which we all kcew long befote now and then says, "look at that outrage, out-rage, flagrant and shuddering." How ought I to answer such unwarrantable assertions, but in the manner 1 did? But, sir, I did uot expect that I should have to fight two"champions of right." I do not know why the editcr t-houid take up the oudgeU, too, unless un-less he was afraid his other champion was hors du combat. .i.ionni twix Docs the editor think I did not know what I was say-ioR say-ioR when I slated "personally I would rather the tickeis were not numbered? 1 I knew it well; but I deny it as a flagrant outrage; and likewise that aoy such construction as he puts on it, for tho purpose mentioned, can be attributed at-tributed to it, I am candid eoough to acknowledge what is right ho is not. He acknowledges that "it is not claimed that the law is un republican, as it is in force in other States." But I have heard several of his party say, and if I mistake not, have Been it in his own paper, that "it is un rcpubli- ; car," iS'ow, I claim that I have converted con-verted him, and I hope for the blessings bless-ings "in turning one sin l or frfin the error of his way." But he is suU erratic, atd as I do not expect him to , ce as far as 1 can, all at once, I will contrive to open his optics that is h:B "mird'a eye, Htratio." I think he is prcsumin too muthto say tbat "the priesthood made this law to spot' voters." He illustrates, but what an illustration! Ho give his illustrations by quoting something Brigham I'ourg said in "an ungarded moment of inspiration" in-spiration" about the order of Enoch. Wonderful logician! "A second Ching Foo come to judgement!" What has "tie the calf at home," etc., got to do with the election law? "Oh B. Young said this about keeping members here!" I am not here to champion Brigham Young, nor to apologize for anything he said or does though I would de-tend de-tend him, in my weak way, the same as I would any other man in what I conceived was right but let me put ,-ide by side with the Tribune's assertions asser-tions another expression of B.Young's, which hundreds, as well as myself, have heard him state often, namely: 'All you who want to leave this Territory Terri-tory are welcome, so far as I am oon-oerned, oon-oerned, to go; and those who have net sufficient means to depart, if they will come to me 1 will help them." How is that with tho assertion of the editor I I His unsophisticated friend says, that I .when the church was unanimous, and had the people all vote the one way, it was not necessary to have the tickets numbered; and I think the church did not expect that a majority of Gentiles wouid ever remain in the undesirable un-desirable Territory, when that law was made. He is begeing the question when he say?, that I "will remain content to have the tickets numbered." I dare acknowledge what I consider a faulty point in the law, and dare plead for its repeal manfully and lawfully; but I dare not issue falsehoods, assert dark motives nor call it an outrage, etc, to carry cut my particular views, when I do not see it to be so. Many things can bo done by a law that were not designed in its incipient stage. Let it bo repealed, if repugnant, by law and progressive ideas, but not ty ovpr ' FtJtements, tt is well known that in niiny States, each party prints namei-of namei-of the candidates on colored paper-one paper-one party white, one party blue, another an-other party yellow. W hat is that but numbering tickets by the parties them' . je'.vcs. 1 not that worse than nam' boring at the poiis? and yet no voi ?av? it is outrageous or Sicrant. Whil a great fire a tight matter kindles ! 1 do cot see the difference betweer j "twcedi:dum ar.d tweediedee" yet That may bo my fault. I do no1 wear his spectacles, nor tsc his eycr iust as te wants W see, so ho accom mod a tea his vision. As aa acquaint ance one quoted, "Some folks ue Fpectaclas of greet And every object thstt is seen Verdant appears; Others use spectacles of blue, And tren a rk-h cerulean hue Each object wears." I now proceed to answer his ques t"on "put in a Ftrocger light," by ask inc another. He "eVnowledes tha the numbering of tickets is "in forw in other parts of the Union." Now what necessity did the "other paru ci the Union" have to number the tickets? Cantetrllme? Why do i he net, or "Ching Foo" fci him, go to the "other parts" and charge them with sinister motives ri Why does be not tell them that they OJmmittccf fligruut outrages, aid ca! oi members of congress to shudder CKer them ? There is no law mide bet to which an intelligent man can fiod stronc of jeciiens What said the eloquent elo-quent Edmund Burke once ? "There never was a law made but what I can drive a coach and six through." The history of the ticket-numbering appears to roc, from all enquiries, to be as follows: Some member of the legislature, loving the laws of his owd Siate, as we all do, incorporated that section as he had known it, and thus it obtained and passed. Nothing very grievous or designing in that, is there? The edito-, however, is correct when he says 1 am "a good-natured, unsophisticated un-sophisticated Gentile." I acknowledge my good nuure, and that I am unsophisticated unso-phisticated that is, I am not adulterated, adulter-ated, corrupted with something spurious, spuri-ous, vitiated, debased, as W oleaster ol-easter says. The latter enables me to write truthfully and charitably, chari-tably, while the former makes me laucb, until my sides ache, when I know that I was in this Territory before be-fore anyone in that office. Ha, ha, ha! he, he, be! ho, ho, ho! X feel pleased that he excuses me in consequence of my innocence and ignorance ig-norance of "learning the ropes.1' That is kind! I need ?pend no more "arguments" "argu-ments" on him, for I feel assured that he knows his ropes so well, and will "stick to his last" so tenaciously that "E'en tho' vanquished he will argue still." Te him now, as to you formerly, former-ly, I say !Farewft,l, |
