Show THE INEVITABLE I I j The Supreme Court Stands by the District r ROBERTS AND PRATT TVIX The tower Court Properly Gave the UtUcento the Oor rnor APpolnteell In the Supreme Court yesterday the I decision in tbe appeal cnarof The People Peo-ple of the territory JJf Utah upon tile relation of Vf H Dickson United for said Terri S i n05 District Attorney tory respondent vs Nephi WCIay + n appellant wa delivered by Justice Puwrr till Chief Justice and Associate Boreraan concurring The decision ic the Jack case which is idr ntiral with the mat named was also real by Jut > Hnd roucnrrwl b CJiirl t f Iwr in by Justice Xano aad AssOCiuUs Justice ii itIlia Alter recitniK that this is a procee < ing III lie nature of a qua vsurntiit tu ileternnnr lie fight of till appellant t > the older of Auditor of Public Account unite Tirriory of Utili the J iiiigr continues Thu cumplnint alleges thou in Hit year A U Hitl the ba d de feiiilauOiruliiW CIIt30lon did usurp unit trtnuJe intu Itie ollice of Auditor ID bl ic Ai counts in and for the tuiii Feriltov of Utah anil ever since that time he has and does Mill hold Hint exerciu the tnnctions of fa d oilier without authority ot law therefor The all dtiona made by the plniiitill in the court below are tIn in dumtl and the denials which are numrrouo and gpfCitic are set forth with the de ciaion and judgment of the Third District Dis-trict Court from which the defendant appealed and from which latter It is show i tbe defendant founder hie i right to hold the olHcu upon the fact that at the regular election held on Aught 1t 18SO he was tlecleU to tbe position by the people of Utah and niterwards commissioned by the GOY rrnor abut no one had slice been elected to fill the office He did not ul Uge that he ever qualified as required oy law but insisted that by virtue of bald election and the said commission of said Governor and not othern < be was acting as Auditor of Public Accounts Ac-counts The act giving the authority to elect and qualify is quoted in support of the defendants position and the Courts opinion on them is htaiei as follows We are clearly of the opinion that I the act in question ii in conflict with tbe organic law and therefore void and that the defendant has no title to the office of Auditor of Publ c Accounts of this Territory It seems to us that no argument ii needed to sustain this conclusion con-clusion The Organic Act has confided con-fided to the Governor the duty of appointing ap-pointing the person to fill the office ly and with the consent of the Legislative Council If the Legislature can take from him this power and provide for the election of the officer by any oiler mode it can take from him every prerogative pre-rogative be possesses Congress having pointed out tbe waxby which tbe ollice question should filled the Legislature i Legis-lature has no power to provide another and diflerent mode But is it argue I if the act prescribing prescrib-ing the mode of filling tbe ollice in quea inn i void by reason of its being in conflict vub tue Organic Act then the otlices do not exist This court ht Id to the contrary years ago in Duncan Dun-can vs McAlliiter 1 Utah 87 and we see no reason for holding othrwisje at this time The act creating the office in question i < entitled An act to provide pro-vide turtle apto ntment of a 1 errs vial Treasurer and Auditor of fuuliu Accounts The act creae the ollice and it provides the moue of election It is therififretvrtifdld The first part is valid The latter part p invalid The b 1tr drtJr IIV act must be made to read in accord with the Organic law which vests he power of app intirent in the Gov eruor and Council Tna Legislature of the territory has taken the Came view that we now take of the question ques-tion For in 1S78 it changed thc law > o far as the manner of electing thq olii cer is concrrned By the act of 4852 th Auditor was elected by the Leula ture By tht1 act of 187tf he is elected by the people In changing the manner man-ner election the Legislature had no idea that it was legislating the office out of existence By its action it determined deter-mined that tb < > office remained no matter mat-ter how the officershouM be chosen Moreover if the whole act should beheld be-held void it would not help the defendant defend-ant He would be just as clearly a usurer He has no more interest than any other citizen in the question whether Arthur Pratt the Governors appointee has any title to the office and we think the court below properly denied the defendant claim to litigate Pratts title He is not interested in the qtiestii n as to Pratts right but otily in the determination of his own right to the officr In similar strain the decision proceeds pro-ceeds to discus this portion of the defendants de-fendants position and in concluding ujwfh that topic says We quite agree with counsel for the respondent ilm an officers right to holdover hold-over until a successor is dill elected or otherwise chosen and qualified only follows where he has been legally in the eiercii of the office and in such case he holds over as an officer at jure But on the contrary if tbe incumbent has b en legally invested with tbe office he is nothing more than an officer de fain there is in legal contemplation in such a case a vacancy in the office There being a vacancy in the office we think there can be no doubt bat what the Governor vn authorized to fill the same by appointment and that the court below was correct in adjudg ing that Arthur Pratt by virtue of the Governors appointment and hs quail dcaiion under tuatappointment the Auditor of Public Accounts for the Territory of Utah After df cawing the question of Usurpation and using copious quota jolts in cnpport of the Views of the Court tlereupon the decision conclude with the following paragraph The harden of prof and of allegation being upon trio defendant vie think that the complaint was sufficient to challenge the right defendant and to compel him to ahotrjiis title and not having shown a valid title judgment was properly rendered against aim and in favor or the Governors appointee ior under oar Code the District Dis-trict Attorney may in addition to the cause of action la beh for f-or the people set forth the USE of the parson entitled to iba office in question witli a statement of h a ill ht thereto rtnd hy tl e following se lion It5 pioviod thaI I in every Mich cute judgment may be rendered upou the right of the defendant and also I upon the ncht of the party so alleged to be entitled or only upon the right of tbe defendant as the form of tbe artion ind ustice may q lreLnws 1331 33 There h no error in the record and the judgment is affirmed with costs It is probable wn tiniler < tand that an appeal will he taken In the Supreme Court of the United i Stale Hnd that steps are now being taken to that end |