Show misrepresentative AND discourteous THE logan journal to is now adding direct and specific kisr misrepresentation W en tation to its endeavor ta 9 attach a part izan meaning to utterances of the NEWS that i not fairly be so con we clip a few sentences from a lengthy editorial attempt t to 0 justify the journal in its course with all due respect to the NEWS we still hold that the article in the die NEWS was designed to convey the meaning that the journal headlines jave gave to it but republican publican lican pressure has been brought to bear ear with sufficient force to cause the news to back water to some extent the article in question meant something or it was an absurd thing to write it it neither republicans nor democrats democrat ts cognizant with the circumstances ever imagined that it had any other possible meaning than that given to it by the journal headlines I 1 the news article is also clearly unfair in another respect it intimates that its strictures applied to lo both parties will the news contend that democrats democrate in logan have done dane anything but defend the church authorities against the wilful misrepresentations of tricky republicans public ans who in logan and elsewhere have deliberately stated that it was the wish of the first presidency that logan and utah should be republican the first quotation contains an opinion entirely unwarranted by the article referred to and a direct assertion which is a positive and gratuitous falsehood there was nothing in the I 1 editorial which the journal copied that justified its headline assertion that the NEWS denounced the republican party or accused it of carrying the logan election by disgraceful graceful methods of adur ourse ee everybody has a right to his opinion and every journal should have the same liberty but we dispute the right of either a journal or an individual to make and aad publish that which is utterly untrue la in calling the att eption of the journal to it its error in this matter we used the courtesy which should be maintained by the press we desire to pursue the same course now but we fl find ad it necessary to use more emphatic language because that paper seems determined to place us in a false light before the logan public its accusation concerning republican pres pressure surel is insulting as well as false As many democrats as republicans expressed to us disapproval of the journals journal Is bead lines before we respectfully directed that papery papers attention to them there aw no pressure or force of any kind brought to bear upon us and we have not backed water to any extent W we e h have a v e n not ot w withdrawn I 1 A wn or modified a sentiment or an expression contained io in the article which the journal copied we have only objected to the journals f perversion of our remarks but that perversion was not quite so vile as the direct charge it now brings to cover up its first wrong there are other insinuations in its latest utterances on this matter that are in the same vein and are equally untrue of course the article in question meant something or why was it so extensively copied but it did not mean an on party or any other party it did not say eay what the journal represented it as an saying it meant all it said but not what the journal said it said that alone was the point of controversy with the journal and the necessity for our continuance of that controversy is the he journals claim of a right to thus tb us misrepresent us we deny the right and we denounce the method by which that paper supports its claim that is by further and grower grosser misrepresentation in reply to the third paragraph quoted above we have to say that no republican or democrat cognizant of the circumstances could fairly say sa y that the article in question carried the meaning conveyed in headlines suppose the alleged facts were exactly as represented by logan democrats suppose some overzealous over zealous republicans Republican edid did all that was charged does that prove that the republican party carried the election by disgraceful methods Is there is no difference between personal acts and party jre je are there not things done by partisans parti that their own party wih not approve the DESERET NEWS did not pretend to decide as to the merits of the controversy over the methods by which the logan election was wae said to have been tarried carried and we do not feel inclined to be placed in the false position which the journal has hag selected for us ml where h ha AV vak intimated that our ip ap apra to both parties VP Is this tm intimation referred to the NEWS has not pro claimed that any person or i party has been guilty of any such d disgraceful methods and we therefore protest against the statement or insinuation or implied asser assertion lon that we have done anything of the bind that was and la is our position on this matter we do not contend that democrats in 1 1 have hav 1 e done this that or the other nor have we adjudged the republicans of lon logan guilty of anything disgraceful the is now attempting to mierei sent our preiton in reference to the democrats I 1 as aa it did in ID reference to the republican republica la we do not propose to be dragged into its quarrel nor to be placed in a false light before either party the w whole hole tenor of the journals editorial remarks of wednesday la Is in that direction it says further we cannot forget the saying of the church organ that falsehood in politics la Is falsehood in falth faith y that being the case its baseless as derti ons about the church organ are evidence of bf its falsehood in both As to its rights we have not attempts attempt 0 to infringe upon one of them B but ut mong them is not the right to misrepresent either by implication as in the first instance or by direct untruth as in the present instance aud and this is the whole point of controversy with N theTo the journal it is not whether the republican party or the democratic party to is guilty of disgraceful methods ap we have made no accusation against either it is as to the right and propriety of stating in headlines over our remarks that we have made an accusation we never uttered and to is not to be found in the article so headed beaded and further of adding direct untruths un truths to the original perversion this Is not due respect nor is it common honesty it is not profitable to continue a con sy with it i disputant who not only refuses to acknowledge an im error when it to is courteously pointed out but pro to make direct charges that are utterly unwarranted by facts facto and to go even to the extent of judging as to our designs design sI and motives so no we will close with the hope that the people of logan of both parties I 1 will judge the matter on its merits and not by any side bide issues that lead away from the main question |