OCR Text |
Show ITS RAILING VILLAINY. The only paper in tho city which made light of tho Republican prohibition prohi-bition mass meeting, which misrepresented misrepre-sented its aims and objects, and poured out vials of scurrility upon it, is out in a long wail because the other nows-papcrs nows-papcrs in this city did not follow its example in thus assailing the projectors project-ors of tho meeting, lying about those who got it up, and falsely stating the incitement thereto. It took a good deal of dyed-in-the-wool mendacity to treat that meeting the xv&y the Sinoot "Mouth" treated it. But now its whine because the other newspapers in tho city treated tho meeting decently and refused to join in its abuso and misrepresentation of it, is the supremacy suprem-acy of insolent, mendacious gall. It is hard to understand the position of any publication claiming to bo a newspaper, that would indulge in the stupid misrepresentation of that meeting meet-ing that tho Smoot "Mouth" did. It is harder yet to understand on what basis that vile organ of dograded partisan par-tisan bossism and stupidity should claim that other papers ought to join in its scurrilous and villainous misrepresentations. misrep-resentations. Its position iu this is so utterly false, so scandalously ill taken, that it seems as though the odium of it should have been enough to content that organ, without its impudent claim that the other nowspapcrs of the city ought to have joined it in its miserable attempt at-tempt to poiut out to them how thej' could have obtained political or partisan parti-san advantago by joiniijg it in do-1 uouncintr that meeting. The meeting referred to was a representative rep-resentative one; it was composed of respoctablo pcoplo; its object was moral aud commendable in that it meant the uplift of humanity nnd tho removal of temptations from many who arc unable to resist their appetites. That the specific spe-cific prescribed by the meeting would probably not effect tho object aimed at is nothing to the purpose. The meeting itself is what is to be considered, and what was to bo reported. Thoso composing com-posing it had a right to erpect fair treatment from tho newspapers of this city, in every way of respect. They had a right to bo reported fairly aud with reasonable fullness and accuracy. Thoy had a right, basod upon tho purity of their intentions and the uprightness of their characters, to claim that much from the press. That they did "not get it from the Smoot "Mouth" and did get it from the other papers, is simply sim-ply to .the disadvantage of the Sinoot "Mouth" aud to tho advantage of tho other papers. And if tho Smoot "Mouth" wishes to befoul itself with the vileness of misrepresenting a meet ing like that, it speaks well for tho press of this cty that it is alone in such depravity. But isn't it a pretty stiff proposition proposi-tion that a newspaper should bo challenged chal-lenged for making a fair and honest report of a public meeting of responsible responsi-ble and representative 'citizens on a great public question? And doesn't the fact that tho organ of the "Fod-oral "Fod-oral bunch" makes this challenge, on that ground, afford a fair measure of Lbo depth into which the politics it represents rep-resents has fallen in Utah? |