OCR Text |
Show THE GIBBS LETTER. The letter of Mr. Gibbs, published in the Herald, Her-ald, is interesting at least in one respect. It confirms con-firms what this journal has said from the first the Independent Movement will draw precious few Democrats away from their ticket. That is not their style. Senator Kearns and Mr. Lippman knew this when they started their stampede. It confirms the belief that their primal object was to defeat the Republican ticket in Utah this year, and if In doing so they also defeated Roosevelt and Fairbanks electors in Utah, Idaho and Nevada, Ne-vada, it did not matter to them. Indeed, it looks as though that was a part of their programme. Old Liberal Republicans will make a note of the fact. The Senator saw that he was gone; his undisciplined un-disciplined mind would brook nothing like that without seeking revenge. He looked upon Smoqt as his Delilah that had shorn his locks and he determined to pull down the pillars of the Re- i publican temple. He -felt that he was under no obligations to the Republicans of Utah. Whatever What-ever honors he had obtained he had bought and he was no more beholden to Republicans for his great honors than he has for his great home on Bast South Temple street. Indeed he not only ' felt under no obligations to them, but was willing I to betray them enough to defeat their candidate for President, if necessary to carry through his scheme of vengeance. The letter of Mr. Gibbs makes this all the more clear. Outside of the evidence that the American Party Is not going to draw to It Democratic votes, the letter of Mr. Gibbs is mostly rot. i His assumption that the Democratic Party in Utah since 1895 has kept the faith and fought church rule has a grotesque look in the light of facts. It is true that in 1895 the Tribune insisted that the church had a right to demand of its high officers that they should not seek exalted political honors without the consent of the church directors. direc-tors. That is the rule in all churches. If a priest of the Roman Catholic church should on his own account ac-count become a candidate for a high office, he would be summarily unfrocked. There was no question of church rule in 1895, but merely one of church discipline. The State had but just been admitted. No question of church rule had then been raised; we all believed it never would be raised again in Utah. But since then thin'-" have changed. The first striking event to lead people to believe that the old despotism was in the saddle was the nomination nomina-tion and election of B. H. Roberts to Congress. Did not Mr. Gibbs yote for him? Did not Judge Powers? Was there a prominent Democrat in the state who did not, with the exception of Hon. Parley Williams? Has there been anything proposed pro-posed that the Democracy have not swallowed? Mr. Gibbs, on that subject, talks as though people had neither memories nor reasoning powers. It is quite unnecessary, too, on his part for every one knows that the movement for a new party will not draw one in a hundred Democrats away from their party. |