The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-24
LOOKS LIKE A LET-UP!
The School Trustees With
draw From the Case.
YESTERDAYS LITTLE BREEZE.
II the Court Wants an Examination II
Must Conduct and Pay
For It.

One woe doth tread upon another's heel
So fast they follow.
There was considerable of a surprise
party in the Supreme Court yesterday
morning.
Early during the session it bscame
known that the three judges had re-
fused the amendments offered by Judge
Zane to the order of the court in refer
ence to the investigation of the charges
against Receiver Dyer and his attor-
neys, and had adopted the paper pre-
pared by Judge Powers. The matter
then rested for short time, but just
before noon, and after Judge Ssndford
had requested the bailiff to adjourn
court until this morning at 10 o'clock,
Judge Zane arose and said:
"If the court please, bsfore the court
adjourn, desire to call attention to the
order in the case of the United States of
America against the late corporation
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
day Saints ct a.. Certain school trustses
have instructed US to present the fol
lowing paper, and it will only take my
partner very few minutes to read it.
It is signed by the trustees"
JUDGE Powers elevated his eyebrows,
smiled serenely. and placed himself as
close to J. ID. Zane as he could get,
without being rendered liable for an as
sault, placed his elbows on the table
snd his chin in his hands, Sand listened.
Mr.. Zane then read the following
STATEMENT OF THE TRUSTEES:
In the Supreme Court of Utah Territory;
United States of America VS.. Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter.day Saints:
To the Supreme Court of Utah Territory:
Unto the court your petitioners, the school
trustees, respectfully state:
The order of the court as now modified by
the court has changed the nature Of this
proceeding. A petition in chancery has
been transformed into criminal COM
plant. We came here to contest the COM
pensation of the receiver and of his solicit
Ors. and our petition was for that purpc Sc.
Under the former order of the court we
could have done so; under this order we
cannot. The court has now ruled that we
annot do the one thing that as school
the right to do. We are completely ex-
cluded by this amended order from perform
ing tee only duty in connection with the
matter that our office places upon US.
Bat by this amended order the court
would impose upon US the duty of carrying
on an Investigation into the conduct of
officers of the court for the sole benefit of
the court while combining by their order
the inquiry within narrow limits. The
court has decided that our particular inqui-
ries OF the receiver were proper, but at the
same time has ruled that all other ques-
tons ofthe same nature are improper. The
court has so changed the order that IL is
doubtful whether we could introduce teEti-
mony upon most of the allegations of the
petition, because, legally, they do not
amount to chngss OF fraud, corruption, or
professional misconduct. We are cut of
from all1nquity into anything except those
particular statements in the petition which
directly and in sufficient legal phrase
charge fraud, corruption or professional
misconduct We can offer proof under
this order only of a charge for compensation
that is both fraudulent and unconscionable.
We have no allegation of such charge in
proof whatever on tho subject of compen-
sation. Had we understood, when this rel
erence was made, that the investigation
would be limited as it now is, we would
then have declined TO proceed.
If it be the duty of the court to carefully
scrutinize the conduct OF its own receiver,
and If 1t would place this duty upon us,
then IL should not limit the investigation
as it now does, to particular acts and to
those alone, but it, in justice to us, should
extend the investigation to his entire con.
duct as receiver. In assuming thu duty of
the court, as we would were we now to
proceed, under this order, we would be so
confined and hampered that we could not
make our investigation complete. While
proceeding under the original order, we
were authorized to offer evidence as to
everything the receiver had done or had
failed to do. IL order that we might enable
the court to fix the compensation for his
services. But thisl matter being excluded
the receivers, doings can be in
vestigated. Under these circumstances,
we believe, it would be better, that
the court, If it SO desire, should
investigate the conduct of It's officers for
itself. in proceeding where the examina-
ton would not be cramped and narrowed
as it is under this order. In that way, the
examination would be more thorough and
more satisfactory to the court. AS long as
we had some chance or beneiting the COM
mon schools of the Territory, we thought it
our duty to proc ed, but we conceive 1t to
be no part of our duties as school trustees
to prosecute charges of fraud and oorrup-
ton against officers of this court, nor do we
conceive it to be part of our duties, either
as trustees or as private citizens to incur
the largs expense OF summoning witnesses
from different counties in this Territory.
and some from Idaho and Arizona
merely to assist the court In scru-
tinizing particular acts OF its own
receiver, and in view of the
facts above stated and the complete charge
| in the character OF the investigation, made
| at this late day, we must decline to assume
the functions of q grand jury or to at
tempt to perform the duty of the court
| in Investigating the conduct OF its own Of
| fcers.
All Of which we respectfully submit
RUDOLPH ALFF,
Trustee Eighth School District
NTTTGpA1Gu