OCR Text |
Show THAT MABRY CASE. Tha leading morning papers of SaU Lake have recently made a spectacle of themselves which is not complimentary to journalism, especia'ly in the west, where one has a right to expect nerve, faithfulness to duty, as well as utter fearlebsnees. A great, a shocking: Bcandal has recently occurred, involving involv-ing a name of the very highest respectability, re-spectability, an eccieiastical luminary indeed, and also that of a weak sister. The acts in the case are plain and on-doubted, on-doubted, and yet one ot these leading papers has been editorially silent, or what is tantamount to that, and the other has boldly put itself forward as the apologist of the wrong doer. This would argue a Btate of morals before which virtuous people should stand and tremble. The whole case is briefly thus: This Dr. Mabry is pastor of a leading church of Salt Lake, lie is a man of talent, of learniDg and eloquence. Mrs. Reilly is a young and beautiful woman. She visits Mr. Mabry, not once, but forty times, in his private study in the church and remains from two until five o'clock. So other human being iB present. The Lcircumstances of theBe visits are noticed by the police. They finally break open the door of the Btudy and find Mrs. Reilly, with her clothes disarranged, on the bed, and the preacher partially undressed by her side on the floor. What more is needed to convince even the closest I riends of the pair of the utter and entire guilt of bcth? Had tht woman any business to be in that private room by herself, alone with the minister? Had he any right, being alone, to admit her? If he had never touched her person, yet he is as guilty as if he had done 80 a thousand times. He has put her good name and fair fame to hazard, which he had no right to do. This is guilt. In condemning Dr. Mabry we do not the less condemn the woman. She knew that it was wrong for her to so yiEit him alone for any purpose whatever. The reverend apologi8t who writes in the Tribune of Sunday speaks of the public and the christians "facing a host of impalpable fears." Alas! no; they are facing the above real, stern and unexplainable facts. They are facing a guilty man and a guilty woman. The unfaithful pastor who has betrayed his flock, his God and the cause of good morals, while the woman, the unfaithful wife, has betrayed be-trayed a loving and too trusting hus-Dand, hus-Dand, her sex and all that a virtuous woman holds most dear in life. "A man has been accused of a sin which is not even proven." We beg the rev erened apologist's pardon, but when the two detectives found her in that room alone with the minister, was not her guilt proven? Was not his proven? What more is needed, pray, to make a case? It would take a ''greatness of soul" unknown in this age or any other we fear, to enable one to hold Dr. Mabry an innocent man or the woman a virtuous, honest wife. "The Disheartened" who wrote the letter of Sunday morning to the Tribune is a canting fool or else he thinks an indignant indig-nant and outraged public iB composed of fools entirely. How can the "Disheartened" expect such a thing to occur without talk, or as he put it "gossip." It is a good thing that they do talk and that they do condemn euch conduct. The absence of such talk and such condemnation con-demnation would argue an insensibility insensibil-ity which could come from but one source, familiarity. We rejoice that the people do talk and condemn. We do not covet that "greatness of soul" which would keep us quiet or the public pub-lic quiet ia such a juncture as this "If citizens expect fair play themselves" the way to insure it, ia not to meet pretty young women in their private studies alone. The whole queetion is contained in this simple statement. Men, we apprehend, talk and condemn this moat flagrant outrage not because they hate the christian church or .the God of it, but because they hate the hypocrisy of the filthy libertine who stole the robes of the christian ministry minis-try to serve his own filthy lusts in, and the woman only because she made of her own fair person a charnel house in which this moral monster worshipped and indulged his guilty passionB. Never fear, this thing will Lot injure the true church or the trae God, but it will give the libidinous and lecherous ministers min-isters a black eye and come very near running such women out and away from God's holy and pure church, to where they belong. The writer of the letter to the Tribune seems an honest soul, but we may say to him and all others that if to be christian it is required re-quired to refrain from condemnation in this case, then we blush for Christi anity and blush that we have been born and reared under christian influence. Talk it out on the house tops and do not forget to condemn it in your own hearts. That's the remedy, and let Christianity and its churches take care of themselves. |