Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-24
THE sc. B." FOR AURELIUS.
This Latter.day Legal COmmenta-
tor Comes Into Court to An.
swer why He Should Not
BE Disbarred.

SHFef w ny mt SHAOUlu lNOG
BE Disbarred.
This being the day set for Aurelius
Miner to give answer why he should mo-
be disbarred from practicing in the Courts
of Utah, the defiant and unlawful cohab
entered the courtroom shortly before the
call for order, and took seat confronting
the Judge. The Latter-day comments
tor was shorn of his muchly-prized beard
and flowing locks on the day of sentence
and this SO thoroughly disguised the once
"District Attorney for this people" that
his own brethren and sisters did not re-
cognize him in court this morning, and
they passed by on the other side.
The Court asked Mr.. Miner if he was
ready to take up the matter of his dis
barring.
Miner stated that he had been given
no opportunity of examining into the
matter, but that he had sent to have Mr..
| kirkpatrick look after the case.
Mr.. Kirkpatrick being in Provo, the
Court sent an officer in search Of Mr.
Hardness, who failed to appear after a
due length of time, and the Court in
formed the defendant that the matter of
his disbaring, set last Saturday for to-
day, would have to be taken up and an
swer made this morning, as no reason for
deferring the affair any longer was APP
parent.
Mr.. Thomas Marshall arose with a
document in hand, and addressing the
Court, said that in behalf of the Bar
Association of Utah he desired to make a
statement. Mr.. Miner has asserted in
open court that he will not obey the laws
of the United States, and the conse-
quences must follow. While he was en-
forcing the duties imposed upon him as
an attorney of this Territorial bar, it was
with unpleasantness, yeti must be done
in behalf of the attorneys and the laws
of these United States.
Mr.. Marshall then asked several lead
ing questions. First-Does conviction
in this case involve moral turpitude or
violation of morals? The attorney pro-
ceeded with many comments and cita-
tons from the statutes to show that the
defendant had violated his duties and
avowed himself opposed to some of the
Constitutional laws, which he defied and
said he would not obey.
Court-M-. Miner. have you anything
to say?
The bewildered man, about to be shorn
of all the glory he had reached in as a
Mormon pettifogger in days of Lang
Syne, sat motionless for a few
moments; then rising up from his
chair he removed his 10 ulster
and thrusting his hands into his trowsers
pockets, leveled his legal eye on the
Court, and took three stage steps to the
front, where he posed in one of his studied
and striking attitudes before completely
Kidding the Constitution of the United
States and every conflicting code of laws
opposing his peculiar ideas of right. The
blgoted luminary then started his rattle
box by stating his right to be heard in
charge against him. He said that
he was notified last Thursday evening
t E O'Clock to be ready to appear
before the Court to-day to show cause
why he should not be disbarred. 'I have
nothing further to say about this matter,
save that the statements made by NV
brother Marshall are not true. The rec
ords DO not disclose the fact that I said l
would not obey the laws of the Territory;
the facts are that the records show that 1
SAID certain laws of the United States
would not obey l never did and I never
Will obey them. / further said would
reserve the unlimited right to decide
for myself what laws are and
what are not constitutional, right 1.
never surrendered nor purpose to. If the
Court will refer to my remarks made be-
fore it will be seen that I said would not
obey certain specified laws. The great
political parties refuse to conform to
every act, and will not. | said if a
law was passed and pronounced constitu-
uonal l must submit to it's demands of
me, but l hold my discretion about obey
ing what L, as an individual, deem an
error. Suppose, your Honor, that this
matter should be carried to higher tri-
bunal and your decision be reversed. If
the opinions of this court were final. then
no question could be raised and the
matter would be ended.
Here the defendant tackled the indict-
ment under which he was arraiened
tried and sentenced to six months i'm
prlsonment and fine of $500 and costs.
lie said the offense is established within
period OF three years, but that no eyi-
denee existed to show any specific time
when the offense of U. G. was committed.
Ihere are no laws upon the statutes here
as presented to the Court that I would |
not obey, and defy the whole world to
controyert my statement | did refer to
certain specific laws that said would not
obey, which still maintain. I said |
l would not turn myself into a
of the South. am TO-DAY
the Oldest practitioner at this bar. and T
defy any member of the bar to saw that
ever made any such saying as Mr.. Mar
shall has mis-statedt; although I would
not infer that it was made dishonesty
as all men are liable to mistake III
violate the laws of the United States
expect to.take the consequences and will
now say that l believe that this is the
arst tlme that any charge has been
brought to Judgment against me.
80 Tar as morals are concerned, I say I
question the right of any tribunal to state
my Individual privileges. I do not be-
ieye, as taught by some of the denomina-
ions OF the day, that all men are de-
PRAYED: Ii a man is taught the right
he will live to the proper law.
Judge Hoge-H your Honor please. in
connection with a few other members of
ne bar here, was selected to present
MS matter to the Court While it is a
7ery unpleasant duty for attorneys to r
land!e such matter against a brother {
'tlll the duty remains. What Mr.. Miner !
has said here about the &c post facto law
Ices not figure in the matter at hand
Inc records which I hold in my hand are !
rom the court reporter, and certified to
IS the correct discussion having trans. t