Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-16
TAKING APPEALS.


The decision of the Supreme Court oi
the United States in the case of A. NJ
Cannon VS.. the United States draws at
tention anew to the question of appeals.
1t is doubtful if there is Territory in the
Union from which more appeals are
taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States than from Utah. The right of ap-
peal is a most valuable right and one to
be guarded. 1t is right as sacred as that
of trial by jury, and it is given for the
purpose of protecting person in his
rights and that he may have the law as
passed upon by an inferior court passed
upon by the highest tribunal of the land.
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
settling a mooted question and that they
may have a settled line of conduct for the
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
of the law of 1862, a law whose constitu-
tionality had been gravely doubted for
many years, and that decision was to
affect many thousand people. The de-
cision was unanimous and upheld the
law, but the people of Utah were just as
unanimous in their disregard of that law.
1t was the same when the Edmunds law
was passed and taken before the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Claw
son case. 1t will be just the same now
that a special clause OF that law has been
passed upon by the Supreme Court.
Although the decision is again against
the people of Utah, that there was room
room for doubt as to the right construc-
ton of the cohabitation clause of the Ed
munds law is proven by the dissenting
opinion of Justice Miller in which Justice
Field concurred. A man who takes an
appeal is bound as good citizen to abide
by the decision on appeal, although he
may never accept the reasoning Of the
decision. That is not done in Utah, and
it is safe to say that there has not been a
polygamy case carried to the Supreme
Court in which the appellant intended to
conform his conduct to the law as deter
mined by the appeal if the decision were
against his private construction of the
law. The appeals in these cases are taken
for the purpose of finding sanction for
some practice or theory if possible and
not for the purpose of finding out what
the law actually is. Take this
case of Cannon VS.. United States.
The Neacs of last night comments on it at
length, but throughout its article it never
once intlmates that the decision declares
what the law is and that as such it must
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
reversal of the decision. 1t is the law
and will be enforced as such, and would
It not be far better for the people of this.
Territory if those to whom they look for
advice and counsel would tell them what
he law is, although they may not like it !?
A great trouble ia Utah, in fact the
greatest, is that those who lead the
people here tell and teach the people that {
he law is not the law, no matter whether ,
he Supreme Court says thing is t
he law or not. Such being the case, i
low are the people to know what is the
aw and what is not accord q
ng to the Constitution? By |
he simplest test in the world. I
t law of the United States, and which t
nay have been passed upon by the Su- b
reme Court and declared valid, conflicts il
With any practice or principle OF the Nor g
aon church, it is not the law according C
o the true intent and meaning of the a
Constitution. Was the science of law a
yer reduced to greater simplicity than it s.
! by this test? Neither Tribonian, Black e
tone nor Sheldon Amos ever succeeded a
l discovering as true test for the law as %
he Mormons have. If Montesquieu could ii
ut live again he would be astonished to b
now that the spirit of law in Utah is N
hat is termed the spirit of lawlessness 81
sewhere.; butsuch is the case. O
The Supreme Court may decide never
many cases against the people Of Utah, A
ut unless those decisions suit the people
Utah they will never have the respect
FIJI