| Show FORCEFUL ARGUMENTS 10 A LARGE portion of the space of at this issue is yielded to the powerful and incisive arguments ot of hon james 0 broadhead B road head and senator joseph E mcdonald made before the supreme court ot of the territory of utah in op positron to a motion of the attorneys of the government for the ap appointment ent of a receiver to take charge of church property it would have been gratifying to haye made the presentation complete by the publication atthe at the same time lime of the arguments of the government attorneys it will oe be observed however by the amount ot of space space occupied by those made by the eminent counsel for the defense that hat t this was impracticable had it heen been w the range of feasibility it would if possible have thrown up the case of the defense in a still more favl favorable Drable li light 9 ht toe position of the complainant the gove government aument is so com cons untenable that the counsel on that tilde side of the suit in equity were placed at a disadvantage having to tight fight as plainly discernible by the arguments published today to day against thu the clearest fundamental and elementary sciples of law they therefore had bad an uphill task in an effort to make the ehorst ol of a consistent presentation this thi s being behig the case it may be correctly said that of the three attorneys lor for the government mr air peters alone alobe made any show even of mere plausibility but even so far as related to him it can only be said that he be made all that could well be made a legal effort ot of ahe kind to sustain a bad cause in thus referring to the counsel for the government govern meat we cast no reflection upon their ability la in a matter mailer in which neither tile the heart nor the judgment of a clearheaded clear headed and consistent man loan is concerned no matter what may be kis bis capacity lie he struggles against great odds thrice armed is he be who bath his bi quarrel just the reasoning of the two learned gen clemen who presented the side of the defense does not re quiri the presence of the arguments from the other side however to render them ot of greater legal analogical and logical force by contrast they stand prominently out with the invincible potency which truth always possesses it can be readily observed by the tae attentive reader that their well sustained propositions are arc not susceptible of being successfully boutro controvert ert ed lor iok the reason that the gentlemen nave have largely dealt aban in fundamental and ana elemen elementary tari principles of law which ca can a 0 only lol be assailed with the poisoned ba barbs rb s of sophistry the and sustaining reasons do not come from legal pigmies pygmies pig mies but bat from irian who are recognized slants giants to ia the profession while tuis tois tact fact adds no intrinsic virtue to the principles they it entitles their utterances upon any matter pertaining to law to much more than ordinary respect the condition which cast the shadow of weakness upon the reasoning of the attorneys fo tor r the plaintiff the regally legally untenable character of this prosecution made blade a splendid opportunity for the defense whose arguments prove how capably they utilized it enabling them to produce a formidable array of stubborn truths some of which are so clearly portrayed as to appear almost self evident it was their high dut duty y to use their professional profession learnine al le arnina and aad capacity to endeavor to repel an invasion of a natural right which must necessarily be inviolable because inalienable they were required to insist on the maintenance of the grea protective principle interwoven in our institutions that no one shall be deprived ot of property without due process of law that the government has in this suit and the law under which it is brought ignored we ought to say violated this underlying principle is a fact too plain to be misunderstood it is simply art an attempt of one party who has no proprietary rights in the premises to seize and expend property belonging to another party parly this must mast be the situation because no person has ever claimed neither would he attempt to hold bold that the government has tae shadow of ownership in the iDro property perty involved neither is it denied on the other hand band that the holders of the prop property arty are not the owners of it it being aale in the possession of their legally constituted and appointed agents and held by the latter for them it follows as clearly as night succeeds day that any process ot of wresting that property from the hands bands of its owners must be undue it is without due process of law the reader will flad find in the arguments ants which it is our pleasure to 9 p print ri t in this issue as clear an exposition of the fact that the present attempt on the part of the government is one of that nature and against which the constitution has placed its ban and ancl the common rights of humanity their protest as could well be enunciated can it be possible that the government of this great nation can fall fal I 1 so far from the glorious glorious height to which it has climbed under the guiding hand of providence as to descend to such procedure surely cewill we will ref refuse to believe it until the deed is consummated it is essential to the public safet that the attempt should shoud perish I 1 ia 11 I 1 its pa I 1 auci inci plenty icy and lim be permitted to develop to fruition we will decline to believe that this great and free government founded upon the most exalted principles plea of tinman human freedom would be gaiety of an offerle against justice and libertson liber liberty on aline with the and destructive theories of ef the the difference would so far as the seizure ol of property pra perty is concerned be merely luc rely in the character ot the means employed to gan gain forcible possession of blat which properly belongs to others so far as the legal status is concerned the plane woulcie he even the distinction would bein be in the decree degree and nature of the force employed to attain theand tte end in view As to whose operations would be the more destructive to the social fabric is a question which outgrowing developments alone could decide depredations of an unruly element of the populace may be readily extinguished by the durance of the perpetrators on the other hand band when there is an invasion of natural rights by the government itself whose exalted function is id to protect its citizens from such assaults the situation is fraught with imminent danger to the commonwealth |
