OCR Text |
Show a majority report against such submission to the people, and you even took the stand that the people should not have a right to say whether the liquor traffic should be permitted -or prohibited : "Now, sir, prohibition being an experiment, and for the most part an experiment that has failed, in my judgment other gentlemen, of course, may differ from that, but it is a difference in judgment but being an experiment that has failed, I hold that there is nothing binding upon us to attempt at-tempt it by constitutional provision." Politics in Utah gives promise of always being bitter. Whatever the issue, the personal encounters arc as fierce as in any state in the union, with possibly an exception or two in the South, where men are now and then killed in political fights. There is no shooting in Utah with missiles of lead, but occasionally great holes arc shot into the reputations of our politicians, and one of the men who often goe3 gun-ning gun-ning in politics, in the name of Democracy, is Mr. Roberts and, in the past, he has been known to return, from one of his hunts with big rents in his pantaloons where a charge of salt from a Republican, double-barreled shotgun, has bored into his anatomy, preventing him reclining in a comfortable position for months thereafter. B. II. ROBERTS AND A REPLY. Evidently there are two sides to every question, and that is true even in politics in Utah. Here is B. H. Roberts, high in the Mormon church, striking with all his might in reply to other Mormon Mor-mon leaders, and all the bitterness of the accusations i3 the outgrowth , of the prohibition question in Utah. j We are not in a position to say that Mr. Roberts states facts, I but we present both sides Mr. Roberts' attack, and the reply made editorially by the Salt Lake Herald-Republican this morning. Mr. Roberts' charges are contained in the following paragraphs: Since the senior senator has chosen to characterize those who have charged a deal between the liquor interests in our state and the Republican leaders as untruthful, and as I am one who has charged that such a deal was. made, I will be equally frank with him and tell what the present status of my convictions are upon that subject And to paraphrase slightly his words, "I trust my language will be plain and simple enough, and my statement sufficiently broad to cover the whole matter." Thus, then, it is: I not only believe that it is moral certainty that the deal was made, but that it was made with the knowledge, consent and approval of the Republican Re-publican party leaders of Utah, including at least the congressional con-gressional delegation from Utah, particularly the senior senator sen-ator from Utah, and the executive of the state. This is my belief. It is only fair to these gentlemen to say that I have no direct and absolute proof for my belief, and yet it rests on such ground of certainty that the stars in their courses are not more sure of moving in their appointed orbits than that the evidence for my belief points to the right conclusion conclu-sion the guilt of these parties. That evidence is this: The men who negotiated that deal on the part of the liquor interests in Utah were men of keen, shrewd business ability. They were not novices in the matter of making deals to ward off unfriendly legislation. The material interest involved in-volved were immense; the sum to be paid over for the immunity im-munity from legislation was large, from $32,000 to $46,000. Under these circumstances was the deal made by these men negotiated witi. understrappers of the Republican party , with the tyros of the federal coterie? Common sense answers in the negative; and reason with unerringjudgment tells us that the deal was made with those Republican leaders who could deliver the goods paid for, men who could not be turned down or overruled in the matter, and the accusing finger points directly to the few gentlemen who have assumed as-sumed to dictate the political fortunes of Utah, among whom looms large the form of the senior senator. This political crime of 1908-9, Mr. Chairman, this insult to the majesty of the state and the dignity of the soverei-m people of the commonwealth, committed by the leaders cf 1 Republican party, is: "A blot that will remain a blot In spite of all that vain apologists may write ; And though a senator try to cleanse the stain, He rubs and scours the crimson spot in vain," This deal and other methods of the Republican party leaders, among which are the colicky spasms of periodic reforms re-forms for Salt Lake City, ever recurring with the regularity of our state elections such as the stockade raids of two years ago, and now the policing of Salt Lake City under the pretext of resisting the "wave of crime" in our city, but which really is an effort to turn what they and their advisers advis-ers secretly regard as a neat political trick, to gain votes among the unsophisticated part of our electorate. Transparent Trans-parent as the thinnest glass is this shameful subterfuge. Let us hope that the time has come when even the long suffering patience of the good people of our state will become exhausted, ex-hausted, and that an aroused and just public indignation will drive these unworthy and disgraced public servants into the oblivion they so richly deserve. Respectfully yours, B. H. ROBERTS, The Herald-Republican, in making reply to Mr.. Roberts' direct charges, says: An unequivocal denial was made when these charges which Mr. Roberts repeats were launched nearly two years ago. Since then the charges have been reiterated from time j to time. Recently they have been voiced by the Salt Lake Tribune. Senator Smoot, in the course of his address as 4 chairman of the Republican state convention at Ogden, made 1 an unequivocal denial of them, and he made the denial for himself, Senator Sutherland and Congressman Howell, mem-j mem-j bers of the congressional delegation, who were accused, and j in behalf of the party. The convention believed him and ap- f plauded to the echo. The Herald-Republican believes it, and stands on the denial. It was once stated by one of the leading men of Utah, one of the wisest men that ever lived in the state, that "B. H. Roberts is an upstart in religion and a demagogue in I politics." That statement is just as true now, judging from the letter Roberts has written, as it was at the time this man Baid it. He makes the statement that a nefarious deal was made between Senator Smoot, Senator Sutherland, Congressman Con-gressman Howell and Governor Spry on the one side and the liquor interests on the other. He admits himself he has j no proof, and that it is merely a belief. j 4. 11 the word of B. H. Roberts against the word of I tneso men named. None of the men accused by Mr. Roberts was ever for prohibition. Senator Smoot Senator Suther- 1 land, Congressman Howell and Governor Spry have never j favored prohibition, and no one can point to a word or act I that would lead anyone to believe that they favored state wide prohibition. They have always stood for the same principles prin-ciples advocated this year in the Republican state platform, local option and strict regulation. ! i 1 hCT abvUt yoUf Roberts? Where did you stand in 1895, when the constitutional convention was framin- a I state constitution for Utah? What did you say when wat 1 STfled b7 a.commi"ee in that constitutional conven tion that the question be placed before the people for their votes as to whether prohibition should become a part of he organic laws of the state of Utah? Here is what you said and you said this as a member of the committee which made |