OCR Text |
Show H J THOSE "FORTr CASES." B Tiit: telegraphic synopsis of the H t report of the Secretary of the Inter- H . I lor, published In Monday evening's f : S ews, siys he refers to a conversa- H 1 Con held by htm with Delegate H John T. Caine, in reference to a H s letter written by the Delegate and H m containing the Declaration made by H K President Woodrutl on the plural B ! marriage question, an J the Secre- B taryadds: Is, ' In'tho canrcraa'-ioi which took J J d - pUco when thli loiter vat delivered H f -"' Ji "" objected that Mr. Caine nd the J I , President of the Church would have H " to meet the specification of forty cases H r p with more than a general denial." B I These "forty cases" mentioned by H ' N Secretary Noble are those reportee. H j by the Utah Commission as havine B probably entered into polygamy H v since tha date of their latt report. H f '- President Woodruff; in his declara- H tiou. denied that cither forty or any B number of persons in dab, had H entered into polygamy during the 3 J, period specified, and the Secretary B ii of tbe Interior saj s the "speclfica B ' lion" will have to bo met with I "more than a general denial." 1 ' 4 We would like to know why. H The Utah Commission entered a H ' ' general charge. It scarcely H amounted even to that. Theysalel B ' ithe registrars had reported to them 1 about forty cases of persons whom H they ha J reason to believe bad gont H -,icto iiolygamy since the date men H tloncd. It will be teen that thl.- H i, v "tvas very craftily put. Nospecifica- H ! I turns w ero made. No names were H v given by the Commissioners. No 1 places or tlatcs were mentioned. J.The Commission did not even state what were the reasons for suppos- lug that these unnamed persons had H broken the law against polygamy B i It was a blind accusation and H ti lame cacuscfor making iL We do H Ht not think the Commission believed H I B it, and we are sure that if they hau 1 I VV been in io$esion of any evidenc H I VV to substantiate it, the proobwoulu H i liavebeenin the hands of the Prose H B cuting Attorney and Unltel Statt H llaralialin a ery sLot time, and H H the suspected iudividuas wunlu H E Iiave been arrested. There is no B 'f9H language strong t-uough to charac- B H terizo the Inellable meanness of the H tJ cunningly devised and unsupported H 1 story. H Why, then, should tlie burden ol H ' proof be placed upon President II Woodruff and Delegate Caine, win, ' simply deny what the Commission only half affirm? Are they to U H required to prove a negative? Oi. H the contrary, should not the Com H l iiiisiiun bcrtiuired to prove the af H firmativt? TheyasiertjOthersdeuy. H 1 and they should bring forward tht H J ! evidence, If they have any, tojusti H (t t fy their a-ertion. And Secretary H 1 - Xobleshould certainly know bUtci H I '- than to ask th gentlemen wnt B B simply meet a general allegation M with a general denial, to disurov. M M something for which not the shad H I j." ow of an atom of proof has becu H 1 Hf ' adduced. H 1 1 i; But there is something more to M I f '" this bald assertion, made for a pur- M I Pose by the Utah Commission. In H 1 the conversation with Delegate M Caine, the Secretary of the In- B J terior admitted that the Commission H Ay y should produce the names of the BBB MK B I pefsoiu alleged to have thus broken M 3s '' lhe Um that the facts might be H "T" " elicited. And he authorized the M WL ' t3 Delegate to make formal application M L ' for those names. This may not be M 13 , mentioned in the official report, but 1 lfe t 'i " it is a fact, nevertheless. And it h- H jLl also a fjet that Delegate Caine did M make a formal and respectful de- H M mandinnriUng upon tho Commis- 1 B sioD,whiIeintliIscIty,forthenames, B anJ it " another fact that they diu H H not respond. j M T!li should be made known to H ""jM the Secrctary,as doubtless it will be, H S and the country ought to know ou H ,' S "lThat JUmsy grounds tlie Utah BBBI , : Vyommission make damaging state- H 9 ments, in such a way that they H I ,' cape responsibiliiity for the fiction H , while they accomplish the purpose H I they had in lvvr. They put this H I I insiudation against tho "Mormons," H I so worded tUt it would pass for a H .1 l direct charge, in dirty hands- here H 1 1 that Uiey knew would wire it to the H l ' rress, before their report as flltd, H aad so the ajiera throughout the M i , uJ wouU repeat the accusation M ( .) until it-would be generally taken as H ) f u esUblUhed fact. H ' v ' Those forty cases, If there Iiad H ( i heen any thing to them but gossip, H ' j . woall 'lave been a rich windfall to H ' hungry oflicials gaping for fees. H ji wy were they not reported to B j ' them7 Why did not the Commission m l name them when called upon to do M I, . so? If they did not know what H . ji "V wtre charging, why, when B t U ;, they found themseUes wlUioutthe M h proof, did they not frankly admit H k f thefactan,lse; to correct the error V , wbicu tay had been the meaca of K f , rromulglng? Ono of two things M i. t th-T should be made to do: Either H y htia forward the evidence they had to justify thefr broad accujation, ' S. -j r confesi they had noue and only ' . repeated the groundless gossip oi M f , ' - nutI-"iIormou" partiacs. Those B forty cases we iwlleve to bo forty H myths and need nothing more ou H t the part of the "ilormons" than "a H( - General denial." r 14 i - |