OCR Text |
Show THE LAW. The decision of Judge Zane yesterday ? has given rise to no little comment, and ! no little consternation. The press of the Mormon church think this decision all right, and the actual law. We think so, too. Two weeks ago Judge Zane deliv-i. deliv-i. ered an opinion in a very similar case, ; the petitioner in that case being the same ; as the petitioner in the case decided 3"es- tcrday. The press of the Mormon church thought that decision all wrong, and even went so far as to say that it was rendered purposely to shield particular persons. We did not think so, but thought then as we think now that that decision was ren-,i ren-,i dered localise the Judge thought it wag I the law. hy -should Judge Zane give :i his decision in the one case for a base and ! sinister motive and not in another? We do not think it at all essential to good . j citizenship that a citizen shall take the decisions of one judge or another as being absolutely the law without any chance for debate or question, but we do . . i , think it essential to good citizenship to attribute honest motives to judges in t heir decisions until there are very good grounds for susjecting the motives wh ich prompt judges in rendering their deci-sions. deci-sions. In the case of Judge Zane we believe be-lieve no man. can honestly say that any of his decisions, whether right or wrong in law, have been rendered : from corrupt motives. Some of his decisions have been of such a nature as to cause great dissatisfaction among a h ' large class of people in Utah, and it is possible that these decisions are erroneous ' i and may be reversed in the courts of last resort. No judge is immaculate, and very few Territorial judges are" even average, but thus far Judge Zane has i given proof, and which has been sus- j tained by the Supreme Court of the j United States, that lie is above the aver- j : age Territorial judge. Would it not be I ' better for all parties to give him the ! ' credit of being sincere and honest in all j : his decisions, no matter whom the' may ! affect, than to impute unworthy motives j to him? To do this it is not necessary to ! coincide with his interpretation of the law, nor need to refrain from just ' criticisms of his interpretation of the law. ' To malign a court is to bring the law itself ! into contempt more or less. The institu-1 tions of our Government provide for the : determination of all questions as to what is the law and what is not, and this determination de-termination is left to the courts, and not to the press or the people. Why not respect re-spect that which the - people themselves have decreed as proper-' methods for de-' termining legal questions? If a law is harsh or obnoxious, the right way in which to fight it is through the courts to test its validity, and when that has been declared, to agitate for" its repeal ; and any other methods of fighting a law are not proper. The District Court has, so to speak, placed itself between two fires, and we hope the parties who are doing the firing I will have the manhood to say that the Court has endeavored to abide by the law all the time. |