The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1884-03-28

law, IOI tuC .ooflv
the government, there apparently
remains bat two ways by when We
NAV be enabled to secure the necest
sary and unobjectionable items OF
the bill. The one is to organize the
University In accordance WITH tne
requirements OF section 1857 OF tbe
Revised Statutes and make it POSI-
BILE to be non-sectarian in fact. Inc
other Is to strike the obJectlonaoie
item from the bill.
l am, very r. RESPECTFULLY,
ELI II. MURRAY.
Governor.
In the communication first quot.
ed. nominating the Chancellor ano
Regents of the University, the GoV
erncr says in go doing that ne IL
acting Gin obedience to she require
ments of the law of Congress organ
izing the Territory OF Utah, and IN
unison with the de cision of the SUI
preme Court of the Territory and
with the ruling OF the Utah Com
mission.
Your committee have made dill
gent search and can find no und1s
puted authority in the Organic Act
OF the Territory requiring the Gov.
ernor to nominate these officers OF
the University; nor could they find
any decision OF the Supreme Court
Of the Territory, nor even any de-
cision or ruling of the Utah Com
mission that will support this as
sumption on his part.
By the laws OF Congress, the
Governor evidently refers to the
seventh section Of the Organic
Act Of the Territory, on which
he bases his claim of right to
nominate the officers of the Unlver~
sity. The Legislature, On the other
hand, mair.ains its right to elect
those officers in joint session as pro-
vided in the act creating the In
situation. It is denied by the Leg
islature that this seventh section in
any way gives authority to the claim
of the Governor.
If the wording of section would
permit cues ion as to its import,
the precedent of over thirty years Of
sanction and virtual endorsement bg
Congress and previous governors OF
the Territory of the exercise OF this
right which the Legislature claims
in eiectihg these officers Of the Uni.
versity, ought to decide the legality
of such election, at least until a
special authoritative court decieion
in the matter is obtained, for until
then, the habit has all the force of
law by acknowledged precedent.
Certainly no authority can be found
that gives absolute judicial power to
the Governor in this matter.
With reference to the decision OF
the Supreme Court Of the Territory,
which the Governor claims supports
his assumption in nominating the
officers of the University, allusion,
no doubt, is made to the decision In
the case of Duncan vs.. McAllister,
involving the Territorial marshall
ship.
The Supreme Court Of the Terri
tory not being court of last resort,
its decisions, to have authority,
must conform to, or at least not be
counter to, decisions Of the higher
courts previously rendered in Sims
lar cases. In this instance, relating
to the right of the Governor to NOM
mate a certain Territorial officer,
not only was confidence in the
decision weakened by its having
been given by divided bench, but
it was rendered contrary to the de-
cisions Of the Supreme Court of the
United States in two previous case,
viz: Clinton We. Engelbrect and
Snow VS.. United States. The De-
cision, therefore, never had author
ity; it was void from the beginning,
having been pre>annulled by the
higher court, yet this is the author
ity Governor Murray cites to fortify
himself in prosecuting the Univer-
Slty.
Next, the Governor claims that in
his nomination of the Off GERS Of the
University he acts in unison With
the ruling of the Utah Commission.
The Commission have not ruled in
reference to the University otficera,
and had they done so, their ruling
would have been without authority.
The jurisdiction of the Com mission
Is defined by the Edmunds Act, and
this law gives them no judicial
power to decide in cases Of this kind.
So We believe none of these
grounds taken by the Governor in
defense of his action against the
University are tenable that Meth
the Organic Act. nor the Supreme
Court of the Territory, nor the
Commission have legally justified
him in the course he has taken.
But 1t ia maintained On good legal
authority that the Unlversity Off
GERS are not Territorial officers, in
asmuch as they form no part of the
legislative, judicial or executive DE-
partments OF the government; that
they are merely overseers Of an In
stitution created by law, just a. in
the case of those of the Insane Asy>
lum. AS the Governor claims. or
seems to claim no right to nominate
the officers Of the latter ins titutioD,
be cannot consistently claim the
right to nominate those Of the Uni
versity.
In his second communication here
quoted, the Governor atates that the
meanir O the Uniyers.