Show A surprising DECISION WELL we are not dl so say a good many persons in comment upon judge zanes decision in tile mandamus cases against the registration officers we confess that we are au surprised we expected that his honor would order the off officers feers to perform their plain duty under the law because we know that judge zane is a good lawyer and because he usually renders sound decisions when they do not relate to the polygamy question on which we regard him as somewhat of a fanatic lu in the decision judge zane shows that the registration officers have only ministerial functions except when a voter is suspected of disqualification from polygamous relations or practices that they are bou bound ad to perform their detles und under erthe the existing laws of and of this territory that they have no right to trifle with the rights of a voter and that the man who would attempt to do so must be a superficial reckless thoughtless man or a very wicked bad citizen in the cumberland case there may have been some shadow of a pretext for the exercise of that dis power which judge zane rules is vested in a registrar when the polygamy question is ia involved although the evidence demonstrated that as a matter of fact there was nothing in it but even granting that the mandamus in that ewe case might legally bit be denied what has that to do with the other oases cases to shichi there was no do claim or pretense that the polygamy question had the remotest relation judge zane after disposing of the cumberland case because that question did relate to it concluded with the remark for the same reason the writ asked for in the case of john H back against J B R morris registrar and in the ase of william J bachman vs E B R elute clute registrar should be denied ff this is where the surprise comes in the reasons given for the denial in the Cumber cumberland jand case cannot possibly apply to the back or the bachman case for the same ques tion was not involved in them in fact the argument of his honor and nis is clear drawing of the line between the judicial and ministerial powers of the registrars go to establish the conclusion that the peremptory writ denied in the cumberland case cabe must logically legally and certainly lie in the other two cases if the regi registrars had only ministerial functions outside of matters relating to polygamy and the back bach and bachman cases had bad no connection therewith either claimed or implied and the officers refused to perform their plain ministerial duty then they should have beem compelled by mandate of the court to perform it that those voters in the language of the court might he protected in the lawful exercise of a right that is one of the most important that any man can enjoy in this country if there were any reasons what ever why the writ was denied in these cases cams the court failed to produce them his words for the same reasons show that either h he e did not understand these tw t V cases came Nother and e confounded on founded them wit with h th ane other or that he erred in not giving some pertinent reason for denying their application the closing s sentence eti i tence ot the ion is nothing short of mry the rest of it we 4 tah I 1 legal grounds and just W t be expected from a judicial mind like judge zanes banels it establishes the important point that of questions and matters relating to polygamous practices the registration officers have no judicial or discretionary functions that their powers are purely ministerial and that they can only refuse or obstruct registration at their peril of civil suit and criminal prosecution |