The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-02-26
THE INEVITABLE VETO.

silence which he has held towards tn
Legislature, the occasion being ar
other veto. This time His Excellenc
retaTns without his approval the iur,
bill sent to him some time ago. 1t
the second bin on the subject that b
has vetoed. As to this bill, THE HERALI
believes the executive is right in refus
Ing his signature. 1t was not goot
bill. II was a compromise measure
The Legislature couldn't obtain wha
was wanted, couldn't get the executive
approval 10 bill that was right ant
lust. hence this measure was passed
and presented in the hope of getting
something rather than lose all. It is ;
bad principle upon which to legislate
Compromise laws are rarely if evel
gooG laws, and the bill which has JUS
been returned With its death warran
attached was no exception to the rule
1t would have been cumbersome, ex
pensive, puzzlinR and misleading; anc
we frankly assert that we are glad the
Governor has vetoed it,
The first bill passed on the subject
was a good and proper one. 1t supple
mented the Congressional act - the
Poland law-eontlnuing in line with
that law. 1t provided for OBJ
tanning iuries, when the odgi
nal list was exhausted, In the
same manner that Congress had
prescribed for obtaining the original
list; it was in perfect harmony with the
Congressional enactment, and no fair
or reasonable person could have found
fault with it. Murray, however, did
object to II, on the ground that it might
hinder the courts in their speedy and
certain conviction of Mormons accused
of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.
Onehalf of those named for Jury service
might be Mormons, as their selection
was to be by the probate judges, and as
these would necessarily be rejected by
the courts as at present operated, the
Governor vetoed the bill to save the
courts the time that would be taken up
IN telling the Aormons TO stand aside
when called as jurors in the class of
eases mentioned. He did not say so in
% many words, but that was his real
reason, and what his veto implied. The
Legislature then passed the bill which
has new been rejected, and which pro-
Vided fer getting juries in the manner
Is before, but such jurors were not to be
eligible to try charges Of polygamy an
unlawful cohabitation, tho idea being
20 overcome the objection presented by
Ae Governor. As His Exeellency had
no right to present that objection; and
b doing which he showed his malicious
partisanship and yindictiveness, we
think the Legislature should have stood
by its original bin and thrown squarely
upon Murray's shoulders the response
bRity Of depnving Jurors of pay for the
coming two years. Murray's excuse
Or vetoiDg tine frs. bill was no excuse
whatever; but he had an excuse for
Withholding his signature from the last
bin, m that the latter virtually admit
ted that men who we're competent to
serve as jurors in one class Of offenses
were incompetent in other classes.
But while We think the bill was not a
good one, Governor Murray's veto has
nothing in it that is commendable. save
the suggestion just noted as to the
classification OF jurors who are lawful
and qualified citizens in the trials Of
and even this is bunglingly and
viciously pu. by His Excellenoy. It will
be remembered that in his message to
the Assembly in the beginning of the
session. Governor Murray used this
Those who engage to say that Con-
gTess having undertaken to legislate
upon certain subjects, relieves you of |
any Obligations TO legislate upon them |
and like subjects, are mistaken The |
argument is specious, and as dangerous
as il is fallaeious.
The inconsistency of Murray, and |
his brief memory are both strikingly |
in the second paragraph of |
his veto message on Thursday. Hesays:
Congress has undertaken to iegislate
upon the subject, and the plan pro-
vided by the act Of Congress approved |
June %, 1874, for the formation of |
lures, however faulty ii has been |
shown 20 be, must prevail.
Could it be said.in palmer words that
Congress having legislated on the sub
eet, the Territorial Legislature was pro-
libited from acting on it7 II the
Governors assertion in his biennial
message meant anything it was that
'etion by Congress could not prevent
'ction by the local Assembly; If his
last above quoted has any
meaning. II Is that Congressional legis-
alton Il regard to obtaining iuries has