| OCR Text |
Show ONLY A FEW QUESTIONS. The Tribune this morning tries to make Governor Murray's action in accepting $2,003 from the Legislature appear all right It says that $2,033 was not compensation com-pensation to the Governor. If that is so, why did the Tribune of yesterday justify this appropriation in these terms : It is notorious that no man oan support a family here and entertain as a Governor should and as Governor Murray has, on the salary paid by the Government. We can believe be-lieve that a Mormon Legislature oan see this fact and in measure remedy it, as it ought to, without expecting that it will serve - as a bribe. Why was any reference whatever made to the salary paid the Governor by the Government? Why was the defense of Governor .Murray in yesterday's Tribune made to turn on the inadequacy of hissalary? No attempt was made by the Tribune in its issue of yesterday to defend the Governor on the ground that the $2,000 was for the '"expenses of the Gubernatorial Guberna-torial office." Well, why did it not say so at first, and stick to it? A change of defense always weakens the defense. If to make such appropriations "is the general gen-eral practice elsewhere," why on earth" did Governor Murray consult with Senator Sen-ator Edmunds (we take it that the Trib-I Trib-I une refers to Edmunds) as to whether it would infringe upon the law of , Congress forbidding the Governors and Secre- . taries of the Territories to ... accept additional compensation? If such is the custom elsewhere, and a usual thing in Utah ,it is a very strange thing that, "the best Governor Utah ever had" should seek legal advice as to whether or not a bill that he had approved was legal or not, especially when he had been Governor in the Territory for four years. Perhaps it was the first time that the . Legislature had followed the "custom" of giving the Governor $2,000 for "expenses of the Gubernatorial office." It is rather odd that a man who had been Governor of Utah Territory for four years should be compelled to seek legal advice as to whether the "customs" of the Territory infringed upon a law of Congress. Four, years is a long ' time in which to ponder such a question. We think it pertinent to ask who the . Governor's messenger for 1884-5 was. If there was no such messenger, what right had Governor Murray to draw pay for him from the Territory ? If the $2,000 ware for the expenses of the Executive office for the years 18845, why is it that the vouchers do not show what tho.3 ex-Ienses ex-Ienses were? Maybe these questions are as irrelevant to the matter as the law we quoted last night. Why is it that the Governor did not receive the same amount for the expenses of the Executive office for the years 1882-3? There was some irregularity somewhere, and to whom should it be credited, the Legislature in 1882 or the Governor in 18S4? Just a few words more on this matter. We think the salary paid the Governor is inadequate and that it should be doubled, but this should be done by Congress and not by the Legislature. We think the $2,000 appropriated by the Legislature of 1884 for the expenses of the Executive office, was appropriated in the hops and with the expectation that Governor Murray Mur-ray would approve various bills, and that the appropriation was made in Are form it was that it might not attract attention nor appear as a bribe. We think that for this reason the Governor felt somewhat some-what dubious as to drawing the money, and that on account of this feeling he asked Senator Edmunds his opinion on the matter; and we think Governor Murray had no business to accept the money ' under any pretext; and that the opinion opin-ion of Senator Edmunds in the case don't help Governor Murray in j the least; and that when the Goverpor took the money appropriated i by the Legislature he laid himself open ! to just censure and criticism, and that j his action in this . matter alone makes i him an unfit man to be Governor of Utah ! Territory. I The charges which the Tribune makes ' - againstthe Democrat, when summed up, ' amount to charging it with being Democratic. Demo-cratic. As to the .charges against thc-editor thc-editor of this paper they are the same ' charges as those usually made by the Tribune Trib-une when all its resources of argument are - gone. How does the Tribune know that i .... ... ..-,. the editor of this .-paper wants Governor Murray's place ? The editor of this paper has not applied "for Governor ; Murray's place nor any other place. '. -: In conclusion, we would ' ask ' why . the Tribune notices theDkMocBAT if 'no one else would without the aid of that paper ? It is very wrong in the Tribune to bestow so many columns upon us. -..Your kindness kind-ness exceeds our gratitude. . |
