OCR Text |
Show THAT LETTER. The democratic organ in this city shares Tho Tribune's view that the A. MTJton Musscr letter explaining his reasons for deserting the democratic party Is a church dictum, and our contemporary con-temporary charges that Tiik Rki'Uii-liuan Rki'Uii-liuan reproduced the letter "for the purpose of stirring up religious prejudice preju-dice In the middle of a political campaign cam-paign that the republicans can see Is going against them." Will "Old Faithful" down the sheet tell us what there was about the Musscr letter, as Tins Rkiuiilican printed It, that could lead any to believe be-lieve that It Is a church article? Was there aught about It to Indicate who Mr. Musscr Is. whether or not ho is close to the church, anything Indicating Indicat-ing that he has ever before been the mouthpiece of tho higher authorities, or was selected for this purpose at this time? Take the letter In the abstract-could abstract-could any man or woman, without suggestion from some suspicious democrat dem-ocrat or American, dream that the Musscr letter Is but tho breath of President Smith, as claimed? Who Is It today that Is giving the letter a church slgnlllcance? a re tho republican state leaders? They proclaim pro-claim that It Is not a church letter. Did Tiik Rki-uiilioan present It as a communication from tho church? This paper expressed tho honest belief that It Is not such, and urged that any person per-son so taking It would but stultify himself and his leaders did he heed It as such. Tiik Rki-uhliuan presented the article ar-ticle as tho expression of a democrat who desired to tell tho public why he left that party. When a republican leaves tho G. O. P. and publishes a letter giving his reasons, every democratic demo-cratic paper In Utah publishes that letter for the cir.ot it may have on others Likewise, when democrats leavo their party and publish their reasons therefor, the republican papers ghe It wldo circulation. Mr. Musser mado tho change from democraoy to republicanism. Ho gave his reasons. If his statements are facts, his argument sound, and his reasoning appeals to others, his lettor Is entitled to the consideration any lettor would have. If his statements arc Incorrect, It remains for the oppo- i sltlon to disprove them. If his argument argu-ment Is unsound, the opposition should prove It and not merely call him a prevaricator. If his reasoning Is fallacious, fal-lacious, then an able opposition ought to easily clear away the cobwebs. So far as the church slgnlllcance given to tho letter democracy and the Americans arc giving It that. No republican claims that for It. If tho democrats and Americans succeed In convincing tho people that the Musscr letter Is really the voice of President Smith, and some so heed It, they themselves aro to blame. |