Show am M DICKSON bickson IS mke DEFENCE nol noi OP OF THE ehe SUPREME COURT DISTRICT ATTORNEY W 11 II dickson is out with a defence of the supreme court of this territory in its action in the hopt case ile he thinks that the has assal assailed led the court with a ferocity and virulence which will scarcely be justified upon cool reflection we do not take this to DESERET NEWS as we have not used any aby lap language nage to justify these expressions other papers a ers can answer for themselves gip Arp mr Dickon admits that it is 19 49 19 a eross gross absurdity ib to deny that th the e mic judiciary ary had bad the bowee power I 1 to make the order orden r staying the execution 0 otherwise the writ which is given as a matter of ri night right atis is rendered nugatory by the execl execution on of the prisoner before be rie can have the benefit 11 but he says in a published commar communication the question which confronted the judges fudges was wass which coi cox count court hud had the power the supreme court of the united states to which the case had bad been re moved by virtue of the writ of error and which therefore had jurisdiction the supreme court of this territory from which it had been removed this question he goes oes on to show was debatable tut that if the court hen her hene hend had the power beyond question etwas it was its duty to have stayed nhe ithe execution if it had bad not the uie power just Ls as clearly was w it its duty to deny the motion 11 admitting that tha it was debatable is it was an open question whether the court had authority or not to arant grant the stay seeing that a amans mans life ilfe lif ewas e was in jeopardy that he had bad an undisputed right to an a appeal peal and th that althe atthe tha the appeal was pending pen pending sing wing if the count court f our thad had granted the stay would it bupt have been recognized by all parties concerned as a lawful exercise of polder would it not have stayed the tax lax ton 1 as fully as did the respite 21 elution antt anted by the executive who would V ve e called the court in question for 4 lexer exercise eise cise of this power under the peculiar nai ullar uliar circumstances surrounding the case and would it 1 not have been far more consistent with wit lithe the general rulland rule nule and practice for the court to have stayed ph execution instead of recommending the e executive x autive to exercise power which mr r dickson admits is vested in he judiciary but there othere is a point in this case wh which c the district attorney very ingeniously guiou gulou sly siy ly avoids suppose the argument to be correct that chatas as soon as the writ of error was obtained and the necessary papers were made out and certified the case passed from the jurisdiction of the supreme court of cheter the territory to that of the supreme court of df the united states stata s and that therefore fore lore the higher court only could issue the stay if how ow about the jurisdiction of the supreme court of the territory i when the application was made fora i stay atay before defore the writ of error was wab ob it t ts a matter of record as it is ib a 21 m matter a ater of fact act that llopis ll opts attorneys a applied plied piled f for or the stay stai after the decision ol 01 0 the district court was affirmed and that they were opposed by the district attorney with the objection that the tho appeal was noa not taken and possibly might never be taken on this objection the coultre court reused refused f the application at least no other reason was offered foiles for tor its dental and is it not a fact that when hoats attorneys showed that the district attorney ml might ht after the appeal was ta taken ken claim claim idt that thal the case had passed f from 0 U the he jurisdiction of the court he auslee that it wa would uld not matter moat roat teras as a stay could be had from a justice of the supreme court of the united states by te telegram legrain just look now at the inconsistency of the position of the court they would not give the prisoner a stay of kmec execution ution because the appeal was not taken and as soon boonas the writ was obtained they denied dented it because it was taken the court clearly had the power while the case was wag within its jurisdiction to grant the atay of execution should not the stay have been granted grouted when applied for between the time of the affirmation of the lower count court s de decision and the obtaining of the rit alt writ of df error taking the case cage to tb the jurisdiction of a higher court what does mr nir Dick dickson sOll say himself now if this count couin had the power beyond question it was its duty to have stayed the tiie execution ec will mr nir dickson deny that the court md had the powe powen at the time we have named he lle cannot then ty by his bis own showing the court be beyond ond question irked fits bits its responsibility fity lity ar nin dickson does well to come comerto ito the rescue of the tho court because as he says bays the judges cannot reply to the strictures of press and therefore we acknowledge the press ought not to be to dready gready to criticize thein but bul more inor because it was lie lle who led the court into its grave error they refused to grant the stay at the very time the they y should have granted it on his representations and objection sand saud were no doubt led astray by his hig jaunty remarks about the teli telegram grim from a justice of the supreme court which turned out to be bie a delusion and a lid ild ft a failure Irei irel bats hats the supreme court of the united states was not in session and hence arose the whole difficulty did not the supreme court here hero know officially fici ally that the higher court was waa not ia lit session did not the district attorney also know officially and not this knowledge kno ge materially adrial ya affect beet the question a as to the culpability b ill lii of this couron its ourse course towards t the he prisoner r oner and now suppo supposing sinz that tha t the tho P acting governor had bad nos not seen sean n fit to s stretch h his authority so ss as to cover this extraordinary case and sive save the lif life ilfe e of the appellant who was unlaced placed in unlawful J jeopardy at whose door oon would have been laid the crime of his death would not the responsibility lity have been upon the courtw h refused 0 0 o exercise that judicial authority which was the proper prope r power to habein ter mr dickson says saya the press has hab assailed the court infected with the I 1 popular indignation froin froni a further delay in the tho execution e of the he defend defendent nt 11 we are amt astonished at sucha charge from such A a source what has the gentleman ent leman ieman done with his logic tie tte why the popular indignation was aroused because hopt was not execute count court for not saving him from irom execution I 1 the press bia blamed bla ined them for fon shifting the responsibility thad thal belonged to them on to the should shoulders ers erg of the executive the pres thu thus went against the popular indignation 11 it wanted the prisoner protected ro while he had any rights left left in law but the popular demand was let him be shot we are sorry thau that the I 1 judges have not a better advocate and stell still more grieved that they bave have not a better case they made a big blunder and the less lems said about it the better for their llo ilo honors nors |