the stockholders present and others who held proxies of the absent
stockholders. One of the views taken by the First Presidency and
Apostles was that the High Council in taking up this case had perhaps
transcended the bounds assigned it, as this was a case in which legal
questions were involved, the Canal Company being an incorporated company;
but this suggestion did not preevent the First Presidency and Apostles
from listiening to the documents. After hearing them and exchanging
views it was deeply regretted by all present that this rejected report
of the auditing committee ghad been put into print and circulated. Nothing
appeared before us, however, to invaldiate the truth of the report,
especially in view of the statement made: that those who were accused of
handling the funds improperly had since made arrangements for strainght-
ening out the accounts complained of by the committee; neithder did any-
thing appear before us as a reason why this report had been rejected by
the stockholders' meeting above referred to. It is reasonable to
suppose that as nothing appears making the correctness of the printed
report at all questioenable, the committee which made it based it upon
the fullest information at their command. Nothing appears, from all
that is known, that this report was a false report; and while we regret
its publication, ^because^ we think the stockholders might have been informed of
all the facts without putting them into print; but, while expressing
ourselves to this effect concerning the publication of this report, we
do not feel that the committee should be required to sign the paper that
has been prepared by the High Council for their signature. We would
ourselves shrink from signing such a paper under the circumstances; for
while it may be a fact that the reputation of some of the officers of
the canal company has been damaged by the printing of this report;
on the other hand, in correcting that wrong, if it be viewed as a
wrong, in the way proposed, we do not think it wise to create another
the stockholders present and others who held proxies of the absent
stockholders. One of the views taken by the First Presidency and
Apostles was that the High Council in taking up this case had perhaps
transcended the bounds assigned it, as this was a case in which legal
questions were involved, the Canal Company being an incorporated company;
but this suggestion did not prevent the First Presidency and Apostles
from listening to the documents. After hearing them and exchanging
views it was deeply regretted by all present that this rejected report
of the auditing committeehad been put into print and circulated. Nothing
appeared before us, however, to invaldiate the truth of the report,
especially in view of the statement made: that those who were accused of
handling the funds improperly had since made arrangements for straightening out the accounts complained of by the committee; neithder did anything appear before us as a reason why this report had been rejected by
the stockholders' meeting above referred to. It is reasonable to
suppose that as nothing appears making the correctness of the printed
report at all questionable, the committee which made it based it upon
the fullest information at their command. Nothing appears, from all
that is known, that this report was a false report; and we regret
its publication, because we think the stockholders might have been informed of
all the facts without putting them into print; but, while expressing
ourselves to this effect concerning the publication of this report, we
do not feel that the committee should be required to sign the paper that
has been prepared by the High Council for their signature. We would
ourselves shrink from signing such a paper under the circumstances; for
while it may be a fact that the reputation of some of the officers of
the canal company has been damaged by the printing of this report;
on the other hand, in correcting that wrong, if it be viewed as a
wrong, in the way proposed, we do not think it wise to create another
"Letter to the Presidency and High Council of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion, 25 June 1897," p. 3, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed May 13, 2024, https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/BLmx