OCR Text |
Show IX in OWN DCAl) K.M.T,. Tha iiilerviaw VNith the heads of tho .uoiiaou eimrch pul.bed in yeater-da.t's yeater-da.t's Tl..u.,i was received wiih no littiu euiiiiisiuaiii amoug people of ail clasacs. aud it is almost universally regarded as conclusive upon the vital point of good faith on the part of tho mormon peoplo. Thoso who had sincerely desired de-sired an expression from the church authorities aro eutirely satisfied, and it is felt that the point is settled beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a little amusing to observe how tho interview tiltod the Tribune on its beam cuds. That paper evidently had part of its editorial matter prepared before be-fore Tub TiMf-s came out. In tho course of an article on "The Fartics" it indulged in its old style of argumcut and made use of the following language: "Uut'thev (tho liberals) .lo not feel like accepting the statement of tho rank and file who talk without authority that there has been an inherent chango in the constitution of tho creed. They will not do it. They ask 110 surrender from the saints except a fair and frank surrender to the laws of tho republic, and it is uo surrender for any citizen, who is a true citizen, to make." It will bo observed that the Tribune here objected to "accepting the statements state-ments of the rank and bla who talk without authority." It rcfusud to believe be-lieve that the mormon people were sincere because tiio leaders had not expressed ex-pressed themselves. It has been clamoring clamor-ing for weeks for an expression from the "chiefs" and has based its objection lo the assertions of sincerity because they emanated from lesser lights, and it prepared pre-pared tb.il repetition of tho old demand de-mand before it know that the authority which it called for was to ba given. As though to more heavily weight I the dead-fail which it was preparing for itidlf, the paper, further on ia the same article, said: "And in tho meantime these chief priests are keeping still, and these few peoplo who havo coino out aud have raised this little, storm are credulous enough to accept that statement as true and lliey feel lika reproaching thoso who will not accept it, transparent, dangerous fraud that it is." If tha Tribune expected to have its uttcrauces treated with respect, it should havo used the blue pencil on that article before allowing the proof to pass. Twice it commits itself to the proposition that tho statement of sincerity sin-cerity should proceed from tho "chief priests;" but in another article on tho same page, discussing tho interview which appeared, presumably, after the other was written, it dismisses the overwhelmingly over-whelmingly convincing testimony of those "chief priests" with the assertion that "it is very thin." The paper should at least ba consistent, consist-ent, and it can got ou a platform of consistency con-sistency only by frankly defining its own position. That, of course, would ruiu it, but not more certainly than its present policy of running away from every standard it sets up. It might just as well tell its readers what its real motive is. It might jut as well say to the public that it does not j ropuse to permit the old controversy con-troversy here to b settled if it can prevent pre-vent it. Tha Tribune indulges in some Filly talk about the tithing bouse, etc That answers nothing, and only shows that the paper is desperate. It is not worth while to induigs in such exhibitions of childish pet'ishuess, for they simply make it ridiculous in tha public eye. The Tribune has demanded that the heads of the church should express themselves, and it is very foolish for it to get mad because they have dona so. |