Show A Plain Proposition The republication in THE HERALD of the correspondence between Judge I SANDFORD and AttorneyGeneral MILLER MIL-LER in 1SS9 has proved to be very interesting inter-esting reading just now It is quite suggestive It shows that the Republican Republi-can idea of the powers of the President was peculiar It not only included the I constitutional definitions of his authority author-ity but extended it to theright to dictate a policy to judiciary It is a little surprising that some local admirers offje late President and of his views of government can possibly endorse the policy he then desired to be pursued pur-sued in Utah even if they agree that he had the right to try to force that policy upon a judge so as to influenca his conduct con-duct on the bench Bat that too would be remarkable The explanation of a country paper of Republican complexion that orders had gone out from Washington that the antijpolygamy laws should be enforced with more leniency might do very well for the purpose designed that is to catch some Republican vote in a community com-munity thai would receive it with favor anddid not know the facts But to the informed the pretended explanation bears all the characteristics of a positive untruth i un-truth Was Judge SANDFORD removed because I I he did not l enforce the laws with more leniency Vas not the exact contrary the truth Did he not bring down upon himself the unbottled wrath and the uncorked un-corked vituperations of the Republican press because he simply pronounced penalties pen-alties as the laws provided without manifesting mani-festing personal vindictiveness and a desire de-sire for extreme harshness Is it not a fact that his fairness was interpreted too to-o leniency in the enforcement of the antipolygamy laws and that for this he was summarily removed There is no uee in any Republican paper or person trying to make capital among a certain class in Utah on such false pretenses pre-tenses The truth is that the policy of President HARRISON and of the party represented was a continuance of the harshness rigor and excess which had previously characterized tho enforcement of the laws in Utah Judge SANDFORDS sentences are on record They show a disposition to vindicate the law but to be somewhat lenient to those who surrendered surrend-ered to the law For that he was summarily sum-marily removed after being informed that it was not in harmoijy with the policy of President HARRISON Is any more proof necessary Aside from all that what can a believer be-liever in the constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land regulating Presidents as well as the people peo-ple think of the executive interfering as of right with the functions of the judiciary judic-iary and claiming that tho laws of the land must be administered according to i his policy I It was because his own sense of what I was due to his judicial position not so much with reference to the question of leniency harshness that Judge JUDD tendered his resignation when ho did Ho recognized no policy that an executive exe-cutive should hold as a regulator in the administration of justice If the judicial department of this government is not as independent in its sphere as the execa j Y tive there is no meaning in the instrument instru-ment that defines and regulates all the I departments of our governmental affairs We should think this must be evident to every person who ia not blinded byparti sau bias |