Show A SUKPIMMMJ MCIMOV VFIJ we are not urpied Eo HO a good many jHroiis lu oom iiHiit uiraii Judge Z ItS decision In tl oiniKlnuua ca ° va against the rughilraUou oflicirs We confi that we are surprised We expected ttmt His Honor would order theme the-me to perform heir plain duty under the law Ucaiiv we kuon that Judge Xanii Ia good lawyer and becauo lie uunllj renders HHinil decisions ulitu llitydo not relate to the polygamy question on which We regard him ac tomenlnt ui fanatic I I the decision Judge Zane 4HWS that the registration ufli < n have only I mirmttrnl function except when a voter is Misfected of disqualification from polygamous relations or practices tices th thlyr bound to I > crform their duties under the ixitiuglans of Congress and of this Territory tint they have no nsht to tnlle UiUi the rights of a voter and that the mal who would attempt to doM do-M > must Iw I a superficial reckless I Iiou litlage man or a vczy wicked lad citizen J i In Mm Uumutrinuu r5 mere niaj have been some shadow of a pretext for the exercje of that dig tretwnao lower which Judge Zane rules Is ested in a registrar when thepeljganiy question is Involved although the evidence demonstrated Ihat as a matter of fact there wa nothing in it Hut even granting that the maudamu in that ese might legally lie denied w list hn I that to do with tie other = < to which there was no claim or pretence that the jiohgamj question had the remotest relation rela-tion Judge Zaut after disposing of the Cumberland cac because that question did relate to It con eluded with the remark For the same rcasauu the writ asked for In the cube of John I Back ajjaliut Jt Moms registrar and in the case of William J Jiachnian vs K R uHiie registrar should ue uenieu Tilts Is where the surprise come In The reasons given for the dental de-ntal in the CiinberlaiHi case can iwi jxteibh I apply to the lack or the lp aJlpy IJjioJmiAn case for the game lue lon w not involved in them In fact the argument of lila Honor I and hi clear drawing of the line between the judicial and ministerial I powers of the registrars go to establish tablish the conclusion that the j ereuuI4or writ denied in the Cumberland case mUst logically legally aud certain lie in the other two t J the registrars Iia < i only ministerial minis-terial functions outside of matters relating to polygamy and tin Hack anti Jlachman case had no connection connec-tion therewith either claimed or iinrriwil niitl the oflicers refused to j > erforui their plain ministerial duty then they should have bun concpelled l by mandate of the court to perform It that thOSe otere inUrn in-Urn language 0 the court nnglit he protected in the lawful exercise of aright a-right that is l else of the most important im-portant that any man can enjoy jut Hits country If there Were any reav > ns whatever what-ever why the wrIt 1 denied in litese coes the court failed to tle cr produce duce them His words for the same reasons show that cither he did not understand the two cases and confounded them with the other or that he erred in not giving some pertinent reason lor denying their abdication The closing sentence of the opinion opin-ion is nothing short of extraordlmrj The rest of it we regard as based on legal grounds and just what might IKJ expected from I judicial mind like Judge Zanea I all hc he important joint that outside of questions and mater relating t < Iganjou3 practices the 1gmos Irctee registra tou otheers have no judicial or discretionary function that their imwer are purely ministerial ali that they can only refuse or obstruct registration at their tent of chI suit and criminll prosecution |