Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-01-20
THE GOVERNOR, THE TRIBUNE"
AND THE $1,000.

The Tribune does not care to split hairs
with the DEMOCRAT touching the matter
of the $1,000 appropriated for the Gov
nor during the years 1ss4-5." 1t is well
that it does not. There is no hair-split-
ting about the DEMocRAr's criticism OF
Governor Murray's acceptance of that
$4,000. We said the Legislature had no
business to give that money to Governor
Murray and that the Governor had no
business to accept it, but the Tribune
says that it is "what is done in every Ter
ritory and State fthe Union; it is entirely
proper, and the DEMOCRAT, by its silly
criticisms, places itself in a light which
is modification to its friends"
1t was entirely proper for Governor
Murray to approve bill which gave him
$4,000? tits pleasure to be assured of
this fact by Governor Murray's organ.
Is it proper thing for Governor Murray
to approve bill which gives him $1,000
when by so doing he breaks the very
laws OF the Government whom he repre-
sents? Governor Murray's message to
the Legislature, which is now in session,
is saturated and running over with pro-
testations OF loyalty to the Government.
That is proper, but it is scarcely proper
for the Governor to utterly disregard
other laws of the United States, laws just
as valid and salutary as the Edmunds
law OF 1882. Governor Murray pro-
pounded number OF questions to the
Legislature, among them being the fol-
lowing:
First-Ihat the organization of any part
of the Territorial Government in manner
other than that prescribed by Congress is
unlawful. and that all laws of the Territory
conflicting with the laws of Congress should
be repealed.
Second-That the laws of Congress are
paramount and should be obeyed by all citi-
zens, and that it is the duty of all Terrific
rial, county and precinct officers, and citi-
zens of the Territory, to aid in the enforce
ment of all laws, including those directed
against bigamy, poygamy and unlawful CO.
habitation.
Those questions can only be answered
affirmatively. Now did the appropriation
act OF the Legislature OF 1884, which ap-
propriated $1,000 for the use of Governor
Murray, and which he received as shown
by the Auditors report, carry out the
laws OF Congress as found in Section 1885
of the Revised Statutes OF the United
States? That section reads as follows
"No law of any Territorial Legislature
shall be made or enforced by which the
Gopernor or Secretary of a Territory, o,
the members or officers of any Territorial
Legislature are paid any compensation
other than that provided by The laaos of The
United States"
III the DEMOCRAT, which has taken the
position that the law takes, has beer
"silly" in denouncing the conduct OF Gov
ernor Murray in this matter, pray wha,
has Mr.. Murray been? 1t was "idiotic" fol
the DEMOCRAT to say that the Territory
had no right to appropriate 81 900 for the
benefit of the Governor, was itP Is sec
ton 1885 OF the Revised Statutes OF the
United States "idiotic" for forbiddinl
such things? Is Governor Murray at lib
erty to set law OF the United States al
defiance any more than any one else
Yet the Tribune says his action in SO
doing was "entirely proper" No doub
it was "entirely proper" according to the
"higher law" which governs Republicans
The DEMOCRAT all the way through has
taken the side OF the law in this matter
and yet Governor Murray's organ an'
defender says the DEMOCRAT has ''simply
been silly from the first" That may be
but we can see no reason why one Law o
Congress should be enforced more thar
another, and We can see no differences
between man who breaks one law am
man who breaks another law. AM
yet Utah's Republican Governor does al
"entirely proper" thing in approving
bill giving him $4,000 when the law Q