Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-14

tude. The law does not notice trifles and
therefore it does not forbid conduct
slightly wrong and immoral. Conduct
may be injurious to society, but the injury
may be so slight that the law Will not
notice it. And the immortality OF some
misdemeanors is SO slight that the offense
does not, in a legal sense, involve moral
turpitude. This cannot be said OF polyg-
amy and unlawful cohabitation. The
injurious effects upon society OF the con-
duct which constitutes these crimes, are
SO widespread and far-reaching and so
destructive of human happiness and OF
human welfare, that they cannot be
characterized otherwise than as grossly
immoral. They involve moral turpitude
in a high degree.
A second cause for striking the name
OF the accused from the roll OF attorneys
is his failure and refusal to support the
Constitution and the laws OF the United
States. Any violation of the oath OF an
attorney or any violation of his duties rs
such attorney is cause for his disbarrment::
Among the duties expressly enjoned
upon an attorney is that of supporting
the Constitution and laws OF the United
States. The accused was convicted OF
violation of the laws OF the United States
in the commission OF the crime OF unlawful
cohabtation, and when asked by the Court
before sentence il he had anything
further to say, why sentence should
not be pronounced, and also with respect
to his intentions to obey the law which
he had violated, and as to his intention
with respect to advising Others to violate
it, he answered among other things that
he differed from the courts in respect to
the validity of the law against polygamy
and unlawful cohabitation, and that he
reserved to himself the right to determine
for himself the validity OF that law. In
delivering the opinion in the case of ex
parte Wall, 107, United States s. G. Re.
ports, the Court says: "Of all classes and
professions the lawyer is most sacredly
bound to uphold the laws. He is their
sworn servant, and for him of all men in
the world to repudiate and override the
laws, to trample them under foot and ig-
more the very bands of society, argues
recreancy to his position and office and
sets a pernicious example to tine insubor-
dinate and dangerous elements OF the
body polite. 1t manifests want OF
fidelity to the system OF lawful govern
ment, which he has sworn to uphold and
preserve"
Here is an officer OF the court who does
not acknowledge its right to determine
questions OF law when submitted to it ac-
cording to the forms OF law. This man is
4 licensed by the Court to expound the law
and to advise others with respect to it
recommended and endorsed as having a
good, moral character and as competent,
reliable and worthy as an attorney and
counsellor-at-law; and yet he claims the
right to determine law invalid which
the tribunal of last resort has pronounced
valid; he appeals from all earthly tri.
bunals to hgher-he invokes higher
law. Having been convicted OF crime
he defies the law, and denies the power
OF Congress to pass laws, and the rights
of the courts to determine what the law
is. He claims to be law unto himself
The Courts finds that Aurelius Miner
an attorney and counsellor-at- law OF this
Court, has been convicted of misde
meanor involving moral turpitude
and that he had violated his
legal duty as such attorney
and counsellor in failing and refusing tC
support the Constitution and the laws O
the United States.
The judgment OF the Court is that the
name of the accused be stricken from
the roll of attorneys and counsellors-at
law of this Court, and that he be de
prived of the rights to practice therein.
CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge.
November IA, 1885.