| Show mr zones Ile buke perhaps it was wrong for john M zane to publicly express his opinion on the partisanship of the supreme court but ha voiced a very common suspicion in his published interview IQ the salt lake tribune inasmuch aa he held anch suspicion it was better for him to express it publicly before the case was tried than after now he is in a position to say 1 I told you so if the case boea against respondents there are perhaps certain rules of respect to the court which restrict the criticism of the court by members of the bar bat mr zones criticism 13 e certainly no transgression of the rights of american citizenship here in this free country a citizen usually exercised exercise a hh right to criticize critic iza ath the legislative and judicial functions of the government and no power ip great enough to restrict buch ariti cismas Finally we agree with the salt lake tribune in the base when it says mr zano had the cause of his clients in h s keeping they deserved to bave their side presented in the ablest fullest possible manner and the court needed all the suggestions that make fall be light on the case which coupel could shed tha no courtesy couite sy was due air zane his clients deserved every consideration find he court needed to have the possible presentation of the law hance we reason the court shurld hava permitted mr zane to deliver his argument and then if the court considered that au unsettled account existed between it and the lawyer the time would have arrived when an adjustment might have been properly called for but what was done has a look of injustice to mr baues clients and a aalf inflicted injustice upon the court itself |
