| Show THE UTAH COURTS NOT SUSTAINED VV K E notice that several anti I mormon papers are endeavoring to ini impress press the public with the notion that the d decision e of the supreme court of the united stated confirms the rulings of tw the utah district courts on the ao 60 cohabitation question the wish was father to the thought it is a great mistake or a sheer fabrication ta the decision nothing gives an opinion upon nothing but withdraws such opinions on the subject as were formerly enunciated by the spurt it simply dismisses consideration of the subject for lack of jurisdiction looking at the matter rationally t this his disposition of the matter under unde r the circumstances should bring an opposite conclusion to that reached by bv the papers era to which we have alluded allu did the decision Sec ision la in the cannon case sustained the ruling of the lower court but that is now withdrawn so that the ruling stands on its own merits or demerits without sanction from the higher court so far it was a prudent thing to do it is generally conceded b by y I 1 lawyers aay era t that hat the views of the majority jo rity of the court were opposed to all precedent and that judges field and miller iller were right in dissenting from the 0 opinion the cancellation of the opinion leaves court un eted on the question and so if it should ever come up again that decision will not stand in the way of a different conclusion more in accord with the established meaning of terms in criminal jurisprudence it will be urged hers here no doubt that the question cannot come up again under the latest decision it will be well not to jump at conclusions t too 0 0 rashly IV it is quite possible that a change of opinion on that point will have to be made there are more ways than one to accomplish most things thing and when justice cries out for a remedy it is generally the case that the law furnishes some something taing of that nature if not by one method then bv another and that a remedy is now demanded tor for a serious evil is 19 easy of demonstration but bat of that we may discourse further on the decision is id not to be considered as af affirming firmin thel action of tile the lower court in I 1 the snow cise case for it appears pretty evident that it was more because an decision could not be given than anything else that the case was dismissed after exercising tion in the cannon case and listening to the arguments in this case exhibiting unusual interest and taking pains to 0 get at its merits the court could have n a ve consistently ignored the question of j jurisdiction entirely seeing that it had not teen sprung on either occasion why then was advantage advant advantage taken ol 01 it to escape the responsibility ale ity 0 of f 4 ruling on the important questions oita involved was it not because beav se an ad would have nad had to be rendered rea dered and this would have been considered advantageous to the people domestic relations it was desired to disrupt thinking people will take this view of the matter and this will also lead to a conclusion the reverse of that j upped jumped at by some of pur contemporaries it if the court could have consistently insistently sustained the course of the lower courts in segregating indictments and in construct construe mg criminal cohabitation babi 4 on out of platonic association in making a law so elastic that penal lies for a misdemeanor br can he be in multiplied ua 0 so as to imprison a defru defendant dant tor for afe ufe e and ruin him financially in construing cohabitation when the parties do not cohabit in view of the deter mi nation to enforce the law to the utmost there thereto Is no doubt that the court would have done so ao but the arguments of counsel against such inch mons molls trout groua rulings so cogent and the reply of the government attorney was so weak that the case would have shad had to go agala against the lower courts and therefore the supreme court coura dodged the issue it was an easy way to slip blip out of a 1 but it was not a dignified nor courageous course coarse to pursue there here is therefore i not the slightest ground for the assertion that the decision sustains the rulings of the lower courts in any partle particular uler but on the cont contrary rry the indications it anything are all the other way they go to show that those rulings would not stand the test of fair judicial scrutiny barthey but they serve a determined purpose and so are allowed to stand sad and accomplish their wort work without apparent responsibility n 81 upon the highest judicial tr tribunal i bu agthe necessity for some competent and conclusive definition of the meaning and scope of the third section of the edmunds act must be apparent to every fair mind it is not in accordance cor dance with justice that the people affected by it should be left to the mercy of a without ecru pies besot of conscience who interprets the jaw K w as his needs require for convictions and whose word is echoed by the courts from whose judgment there is no appeal it is a united states law and should be defined in a conclusive manner by a united states court the district courts of utah are territorial courts the supreme court coart of the united kates S ates in the reynolds case explained that they have the same jurisdiction in certain cases cases a as a the circuit and district courts ot the united states but that this does not make them circuit and itna district courts ot the united states and the court said we have often so decided if the provision in the revised statutes in regard to the territory ot of washington was made applicable to utah as ils it ought to be to all the territories appeals would lie to the supreme court of the united st states ates in all cases w wherein herein the constitution or any law or tareq of the united states I 1 is in question that hat Is isa a righteous provision and k not to be limited to one alone I 1 lu if it were extended to ta utah there would be some protect projection protection ibn to tae tte citizens piti zens against the diverse and unjust decisions made in the territorial prial courts at the will of a fee hunting and malicious prosecuting officer the rejoicings rejo icings which are ad over the decision of ot the upper court show that fair investigation is what the he raid upon the mor mons least desire they gloat over the opportunity which it assures of bf unchecked assaults upon the liberties of the people of utah tt it settles ho no point of law it does not say that the utah courts are right in any particular but it leaves an unpopular people to the consla onslaughts an u U pt I 1 their persecutors in the name h e law law without appeal to a proper tribunal those who v ho can rejoice over such a condition of affairs are not to de be numbered among the magnanimous of the earth and ther n names es would be sadly out of place in ri alte the list of the just |
