OCR Text |
Show THAT FAMOUS LETTER. "The letter that Reed Smoot wrote," promises to make history in Utah. The members of the Utah delegation in congress were requested re-quested by a prohibition convention to use their influence in behalf of prohibition legislation in the last Utah legislature. B. H. Rob-erts, Rob-erts, on the stump, claimed that the congressional delegation never made a reply to the telegram. Later it developed that a reply had been sent, but not to the representatives of the conventions and not for publication. On this subject, the Standard, a few days ago, published the letter of Nephi L. Morris, which declared no direct reply had been recived, but that Mr. Morris was shown a letter, purporting to have been an answer, sent to a third party. Now comes Bishop C. W. Nibley in the Deseret News with this statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Nov. 1910. Deseret News There are a f ew people just at this time who are clamoring for the publication of a private letter which was sent by Senator Smoot to President Joseph F. Smith in January, 1909. I believe that rewards have been offerd for the publication of this private letter, also for the telegram which was sent by Senator Smoot to President Smith as answer to the telegram which has been published so extensively, and which was signed by myself, Hyrum M. Smith and Nephi L. Moris. I would not intrude any of these matters on The News, which pertain to political questions, except to explain the reason why Senator Smoot should ask President Smith to read a certain letter to the senders of the famous telegram. Prior to January 21, 1909, which is the date of the letter in question, Senator Smoot had received numerous communications communi-cations from leading men and members of the church, urging urg-ing that something should be done relative to the state-wide prohibition question; that the church, through its resolution passed at conference, was demanding state-wide prohibition and that certain members of the church had gone so far as to claim that legislators who were members of the Mormon church, were bound by the action of the conference, whether present and voting for the resolution or not. Senator Smoot held to the view that it was a dangerous proposition for the church, as such, to insist on the passage of any measure before the legislature, and, holding to these views, would he not very rightly and properly write to the president of the church on such a matter, which he did in a letter covering several pages? Now, as the signers of the famous telegram were church oficials of more or less prominence, what more natural or proper way would he answer the telegram we sent than by asking the president of the church to read his letter to us, which was written a few days before and which from his point of view covered the vhole state-wide prohibition question, ques-tion, especially when it is remembered that in our telegram sent to Senator Smoot we stated that "the church demands it"? I submit, that in view of the facts in the case, there is no fair-minded man who will not be inclined to say that Senator Sen-ator Smoot made to the senders of the telegram the most full, proper and sensible answer that could have been given under the circumstances.. Respectfully, (Signed) C. W. NIBLEY. The Salt Lake Tribune charges that the foregoing is proof that the head of the church has been made the ruling political power in Utah, and further says: Presiding Bishop Nibley says that the most natural thing in the world, when Utah people ask their senators and congressmen con-gressmen any question, is to have the answer sent from the head of the church. The fact that one of the senators addressed is not generally gen-erally suposed to be a Mormon, seems to make no difference to this order of business. When men address Senator Sutherland Suther-land they will have to wait around the office of the first presidency until an answer is handed out. If this inquiry pertains to pending legislation In Utah, affecting the welfare of the whole people, Mormon and non-Mormon non-Mormon alike, the answer may be so secret that the public has no business to know it. And when results corroborate certain charges of infamous in-famous deals, the secrecy of such an answer detracts nothing from that corroboration. Senator Smoot might have been justified in referring to President Pres-ident Smith the telegram sent by Nibley, Morris and Smith, but how can Senator Sutherland explain his part in that deal? He is not a Mormon, and is supposed to be an active part of the Utah delegation dele-gation in congress. Either he has lost his identity as a Gentile or has completely surrendered hi3 individuality and his senatorial pre-rogatives pre-rogatives to the senior senator from this state. This famous letter places Sutherland in a most unenviable position. |