| Show UTAH JUDICIAL MATTERS IN tho the dispatches dispatch ea we publish today is a brief report of a decision by the supreme court of the tho united states in a case relating to this territory that the territorial attorney genera general and not the U S attorney for the territory is tho the proper officer to prosecute in all territorial cases this was well enough known here before for no man of sense could doubt it yet some odthe of the tho federal judges 0 for the territory with obstinate and malignant ju di elal clai blindness have refused to see it furnishing 1 further evidence of the truth of the adage that none are so blind as those who wont see now there is on record a decision from the U S supreme court that tile territorial marshal marshai and nut the U S marshal marsha is the proper executive officer of the courts in territorial cases and another by the iho same authority that the territorial attorney general and not the US attorney ia Is the proper prosecuting fleer officer Df in ir such oases cases will this be sufficient for the tile ryu portion of the federal judici J edict ary for forthe the territory r y judging ju bilging by analogy the tho apprehension that it will not comes first for it is notorious that judges of this clas class will swill nind find som some P kind of a flaw in the local officials so ai as r toi tol to reject eJect their ee services if it be possible and a great many th things in 8 aro are possible to an unjust judge unfortunately utah is not unacquainted with federal judges who will not do what is just and right of their own volition nor will they do right by com eom compulsion if it they can help it this tina induces luludes the supposition that no xio matter how precise and definite and rigid the lines may be which the united states supreme court dras concerning this territory an unjust judge will find boiner some way of overriding tile law lam in ini the abonce absence of more definite anil and detailed information concerning tile fhe do decision gislon in it question we maybay may eay say that in 1559 1859 mr Z snow wai elected attorney general of the tho territory for four years tears in ra september 1870 an information was bied filed again against t him in tile the district court of the third judicial district in the tile name of the united states buthe on the relation of major hempstead attorney of df the united states for utah this information claimed that the united states At attorney tornby was wads the lawful officer to attend to all busine business is ili in tile the court as well for tho the territory ryas as for tile the united states mr snow appeared to this Information and ang showed that he had been cl elected ectal by the joint vote of the legislative assembly to the office of attorney general Cle gave bonds took the oath held the commission as is provided tided by tile the territorial law and clai elai claimed meil mell the tile right to attend to cases in it behalf of the territory to this thero there abe was a general demurrer T he c ourt court here unanimously rendered judgment i against mr snow anabe and bo appealed to tile the supreme court wo understand that there was wag an a agreement between mr arsnow snow and major hempstead that tho united states and Terr territorial itoi ial lai mai marshal question was to abide the tho decision ci in this case that is in the united states and territorial actor mey mes case the agreement be respected the thi supreme court has in act reins reinstated bated marshal marshai by this thi decision |
