OCR Text |
Show I TAKING APPEALS. lJ . . . -. - - I M The decision of the Supreme Court of t I j the United States in the case of A. M. j ; j Cannon vs. the United States draws at- f ; , tention anew to the question of appeals, j ! It is doubtful if there is a Territory in the ; Union from which more appeals are j ". taken to the Supreme Court of the United ! " I States than from Utah. "The right of ap- ' ; . peal is a most valuable right and one to v be guarded. It is a right as sacred as that ' ' of trial by jury, and it is given for the purpose of protecting a person in his I rights and that he may have the law as S ; . passed upon by an inferior court passed i i upon by the highest tribunal of the land. 1 This is its object, and when this final determination is had those who appeal are usually content to abide by such determination, although they may have ! . ; wished the decision to be otherwise.. : : '. They have appealed for the purpose of j f settling a mooted question and that they j may have a settled line of conduct for the j ; future. This is not the case in -appeals .' from Utah in polygamy cases. Take the case of Reynolds, for example. That was a most important case, as upon the de- ' cision in it depended the determination I of the law of 1862, a law whose constitu- ! ' - tionality had been gravely doubted for j j ; many years, and that decision was to j :; . affect many thousand people. The de- i cision was unanimous and upheld the law, but the people of Utah were just as i unanimous in their disregard of that law. It was the same when the Edmunds law i ' was passed and taken before the Supreme I :, Court of the United States in the Claw- ' i son case. It will be just - the same now I .' that a special clause of that law has been j passed upon by the Supreme Court, j . ' Although the decision is again against I - the people of Utah, that there was room I room for doubt as to the right construc- l . tion of the cohabitation clause of the Ed- l ' munds law is proven by the dissenting opinion of Justice Miller in which Justice I ' i i Field concurred. A man M ho takes an . I appeal is bound as a good citizen to abide f 3 by the decision on appeal, although he may never accept the reasoning of the ! decision. That is not done in Utah, and I ) it is safe to say that there has not been a j ! polygamy case carried to the Supreme j 1 Court in which the appsllant intended to f 1 , conform his conduct to the law as deter- : ; mined by the appeal if the decision were j ' ' against his private construction of the ilaw. The appeals in these cases are taken for the purpose of finding a sanction for some practice or theory if possible and . .. 3 not for the purppse of finding out what . , jj the law actually is. Take " this I j f case of Cannon vs. United States, j ' i j The News of last night comments on it at r f length, but throughout its article it never ' ! ; . once intimates that the decision declares j . "what the law is and that as such it must If be accepted and obeyed by the people of : Utah, at least until such times as they can procure the repeal of the law or the ' 'j reversal of the decision. It is the law . and will be enforced as such, and would j it not be far better for the people of this Ji '; Territory if tliose to whom they look for I , 'j . advice and counsel would tell them what I , ; i; " the law is, although they may not like it? t j; A great trouble in Utah, in fact the j - ( greatest, is that those who lead the ? i people hero teli and teach the people that 5 the law is not the law, no matter whether I the Supreme Court says a thing is I 1 the law or not. Such being the case, I i how are the ieople to know what is the law and what is not accord- t ing to the Constitution? By i the simplest test in the world. If a law of the United States, and which . r( f may have been passed upon by the Su- 1 f preme Court and declared valid, conflicts f i with any practice or principle of the Mor- I mon church, it is not the law according ! J to the true intent and meaning of the j ) .1 Constitution. "Was the science of law i -ever reduced to greater simplicity than it j . '$ by this test? Neither Tribonian, Black- I ' . J stone nor Sheldon Amos ever succeeded I ,! in discovering as true a test for the law as S i ' the Mormons have. If Montesquieu could ; - but live again he would be astonished to know that the spirit of law in Utah is s what is termed the spirit of lawlessness 3 "efeewhere ; butuch is the case. I1 I The Supreme Court may decide never so many cases against the people of Utah, J but unless those decisions 6uit the people of Utah they will never have the respect i they should. |