OCR Text |
Show ITS FALSITY AND PERVERSITY. Pursuing its usual tactics of falsehood false-hood and misrepresentation, tho Smoot paper of yoslcrday morning undertook to state The Tribune's position with rospect to Smoot. It statod that it wished to correct, "their 6tutemcnt" that it was the friends of Smoot that sproad tho stato-mont stato-mont and mado tho formal charge that ho was a pob'gamist. There is no such "their statement." Tho statement state-ment was that Smoot took advantngc of an irresponsible charge that ho was a polygamist, and trickily assumed that when that statement was rebutted ho was acquitted. There was no "formal charge" that ho wns a polygamist. And then the Smoot pnpor continues to say that "it is perfectly known that ovon The Tribune fathered that charge at the timo of the contest, and even after tho vote of the Scnato had settled set-tled the caso for all timo that, jnpor declared that 'Smoot had never yet disproved dis-proved that ho was a polygamist.' " To which the truthful reply is that Tho Tribune never fathered the charge that Smoot was a polygamist. As to the rest of it wo may say that Smoot never has disproved that ho is or was a polygamist. po-lygamist. We don't know whether he was or is or not. We have never charged it upon him; wc havo never stated that ho was not a pob'gamist. Tho presumption is, from tho theological theologi-cal standpoint and from the secret manifesto man-ifesto of President John Taylor in his defiance of tho Edmunds lnw, that Smoot was a pob'gamist in somo form in order to moot the requirements of tho Taylor manifesto. Othorwiso it is difficult to seo how he could havo been chosen as an apostle at tho timo he was, when the Taylor manifesto was in complcto active force. The Tribune has never stated that "Smoot is not ifnd novor was a polygamist." polyga-mist." It has no ovidenco on tho point aside from tho cvidenco that circumstances circum-stances provide. President Taylor in his manifesto declared that no ono should receive preferment in tho church unless ho wore a pob'gamist. This was his defiant answer to the Edmunds law which prohibited polygamy and disqualified dis-qualified polygamists as voters and for jury service. And there the matter rests, so far as wc arc concerned. We woro never in favor of charging polygamy po-lygamy on Smoot (and it was not charged in 'the case against him) because be-cause we did not know it to be true. Wo havo never boon convincod that he was not a polygamist; and wo do not seo how ho could have received church preferment without being a polygamist, under all the requirements that existed at tho time. Wo do not understand tho motive of the Smoot paper in bringing this matter mat-ter up at this time, but we can not allow its misslatoments and absolute falsehoods to go without correction. |