The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-03

should be retired, l did so solely upon
the statements made by them in court,
not because they lack ability or for any
personal reasons. l have not seen the
statements filed with the court by them.
JUDGE HARNESS PAPER.
During the day, Judge Hardness. to
whom the question had been referred
as examiner, presented the following:
The undersigned, who, by an order of
this court, dated January 23d, 1889. was
appointed to take aud report to the
court the evidence in respect to the
matters named in said order, and by a
further order dated the 3lst of Janu-
airy, was directed to proceed in the
manner and at the times therein speci-
fed, respectfully represents: That
subpe 1as for fifty witnesses on the part
OF the petitioners have been delivered 10
me by the clerk OF the court. Some Of
these Witnesses reside in parts of the
Territory far distant from Salt Lake
County, and the residence of few is
given in other Territories. The delay
in definitely appointing attorneys 10
represent the petitioners has prevented
me from consulting with them as to
the means or manner of service of said
subpenas, and the time fixed for the
opening o. the hearing is close at hand.
l Wonld also suggest, for the considefa-
ton OF the court, the question whether
attendance of witnesses can be enforced
without q prepayment or tender OF
witness fees, and also call attention to
the fact that, so Tar as l know, no
means are provided for payment Of
off nj m
the subp9nas.
Very respectfully,
ROBERT Hardness,
Examiner or Commissioner.
As result of this. $500 was ordered
by the receiver, to pay sucn witnesses
WHY THEY DECLINED.
The reasons why Mr.. Critchlow did
not care to proceed with the proseou-
ton of the case are given as follows.
When approached by a reporter who
asked to be allowed to copy the docu-
ment, he made no objection:
To the Honorable Supreme Court of the
Territory Of Utah.:
When, on January 31st, in open court,
was appointed one of the attorneys to
conduct an examination in behalf of the
court before Examiner Hardness, | at
once expressed to the court my unwill
ingness to assume the duties imposed
upon me. Judge lane, as counsel for
the school trustees, suggested certain
m alters which might render it impos-
sib!e for me to be appointed. but at the
same time expressly stated that he had
no objections to me. did not feel called
upon to urge the court to release me
therefore, and not feeling at liberty to
decline to act, left the matter with the
court.
now understand that, as counsel for
the school trustees, Judge Zane objects
to my acting. l again, therefore, ask
the court to appoint some one else, if
in the opinion of the court the facts
hereinafter stated seem sufficient. In.
asmuch as Judge Marshall, my col
leage, has been permitted to file with
the court statement of his position in
the matter, [ ask the same privilege,
and herewith state the positions which
have at various times taken in regard
to the matter.
was approached by school trustee
and asked to join in a petition in in
fervention. on the ground that the |
Gentiles ought to do something in this |
matter. | refused, and gave as my !
reason that | didn't consider it Gen
tile" matter; that, as matter of lew,
[ didn't consider that the school |
trustees had any right to intervene;
and lastly that l knew absolutely |
nothir + TIE truth of the rumors of |
charges .. inst the receiver and his |
attorneys, and that the matters to be |
set up In the petition. if untrue. were
ibelouS, and might get the trustees |
into trebule. also expressed the |
opinion that the design of the pro-
seeding was political. Atvarlous times
[ have declared my belief that the |
asked by the receiver
and his Attorney Peters was excessive,
| have also stated, many times, my |
belief in the good faith Of all parties in
the matter of the compromise proceed |
ngs, and have stated as frequently that |
know nothing whatever as to the |
transactions of the receiver with regard |
to sheep and cattle; but have always |
said that # certain matters related to |
me by personal friends. of their own |
knowlege, were true, the receiver was |
grossly culpable in the matter. AS to |
my employment by the receiver, it |
occurred Immediately after his appoint |
ment, in October, 1887, and he stated |
at the time that it was for Mr.. Peters,
United States attorney. My work was
EN- bodied in written report, which |
presume is in ths possession of the |
United States Attorney, and my bill
S25, was paid November 80, 1887. since
which time have not had any business
with the receivers office.
The facts and opinions above set
forth have never attempted to con-
ceal, and in conversations with the
trus teas and their friends, l have been
outspoken, especially since the matter
of the contempt arose. and for the rea-
son that, as personal friend of at least
three of them, L was sollcitous that
they should not be placed in a wrong
position.
Respectfully,
e. B. CRITcELow.
JUDGE MARSHALL,
however. was of different frame OF
mind. So far as he, himself, was con-
csrned, he did not want his document
given to the world, either through TIE
HERALD or by any other source. He
A.