Show I Editorial Department I A C1 INS Editor A WISE CHOICE A few days ago a near contemporary I published un tditurlul urtirlri on the Im inrUuoe I + Oi choslnR cleui able lull upright up-right moo for Iho Supreme bench of the new State > noT suggested that ClmrlrH Sam Z S-am would naturally he tile I drat choice of the Republican Vtehopo It will bo no because wn believe Judge Zane Youl1 all the rpqulifnuiili of the CliO In uverj particular Bud because ho deserves more from the Uepabllcnn party and from the liKiile of Utah RPUrrally than any ot i a t I mail who ever rot upon the bilTI HP Is a m in who o private llj duutlly blameless and whose public life Is u rill arkable ortTj Oi S < terabfr 1 1881 he qn Ciiicf Justice and began nt oneJ BJ I Court He nnilueJ on the b > ncir wil Aiuuat t 21h Ib83iir < > mlngiii < < onrt t oil l tinuouily fortlie wholo ynu there being t little Ulna in the Bummer when i routine rou-tine ImsliiPHS wm trni suettd Chief Juatlc Sanford buCCetlltl1 him In August 1SS8 and Judge Ziiue resumed tie prjo lice of low uutil 188J whQii he was ro appolnttd Chief Justice by President ILirrlfon During the lime he was practicing pra-cticing law tlij l most important thing ho was engaged In Was to prevent Ifjanh U D > vr frin in thing away with much of the Church Fund Oi JuneCih 1SS9 hu qualified agnmao Chief Justice and I hi M the place until January 7ilir891 when Chief Justice Merritt miccnvdcd him In Celt ber 1S90 he delivered tin uplninn recogn zing the good faith of the Maniftwlo the ntx morulug after it was iseud ly thtFlitt Pr dlicy of the Muiuicm Chincli In 0tob iblll he iHHvered tho opinion which reco nlzoit the t gtoJ faiih of th ilanlfepto and re toied to thv Church Iu prcouul property proper-ty Inij opinion upon the uqultublr doctrine C 110 h reKiiidd nn theM the-M at ho ever elllh real lln the Supreme Court of Utah UurlnK lib tirvicfl ou tlif liptidi mnuy cites which wetuttlrd by him in thu District Court here wi ro npprafd llo the Snpnmo Court of tau United Suitef hut in noslnqlo lustunct Wits hii ilnclrlon < reversed and It IH BWOU tufiil tart rl fur H j rage H i1o Mr U Lid n nninlT of opinions 10 thu tii i p I n tuu Curt CI if Utih In castle not tried by hui wrhh nero rppRls tuthr Hupoine Ciur1 of the United l Stnt s amid In only II rco I iuatauct wiu ha rcvrtcd Strut uf these cusifs hlllruicil an that of BriUitn v ArniKlroDf on ilio clnltlo mo tbtlr law vereof great impoitauce The EruJI CRBO of the Projlt vH Daulol which Itciiini I thus the uiiinlclimlldtH niuld not tsX for municipal piiuuneb tht farming lualtIn 1 tlirlr limits vrauulllrtn d SY tto Ui Supreme coutt ia th Liter o no Iii Klllum vs hlnord U ia I safuto say that very few j ulgen have ever made fuch it aLurlnx of judicial capncity on1 pow r rho great mining aloe of far kit Hill TP 11 luau Hid > t acre Jiulpr UIIB IIto tho opln oi lu lau i Suprimiu court wm iieTer appealed Sti judge in Utti duflnj hlt tlmti hud 5 10 few appeitlrt tnken from hln declBious ouiiar < d with the uumberof them |