Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1889-12-19
4 SURPRISING DECISION.

" ILL We IRE AoL SUI alA-Cu- =
say good many persons in con
ment upon Judge Zane's decision i
the mandauus cases against tn
registration officers. We comics
that we are surprised. We expects
that His Honor would order On
officers TO perform their plain dut.
under the law, because we know
that Judge Zane j. 4 good lawyer
and because he usually render
sound decisions when they do no
relate TO the polygamy question, OF
which We regard him as somewhat
ola fanatic.
In the decision Judge Zane
shows that the registration Off
GERS have only ministerial
functions, except when n voter
is suspected Of disqualification
from polygamous relations or prac-
tees; that they are bound to perform
their duties under the existing laws
Of Congress and OF this Territory;
that they have no right to trifie
with the rights Of a voter and that
the man who would attempt to 10
50 must he a superficial, reckless,
;hOughtless man or a very wicked,
lad citizen.
In the Cumberland case there
may have been some shadow Of a
pretext for the exercise Of that dis.
cretionary power which Judge Zane
rules is vested in a registrar, when
the polygamy question IS involved.
although the evidence demonstrated
that, As 4 matter Of fact, there was
nothing in it. But even granting
that the mandamus in that case
might legally be denied, what has
that to do with the other eases. |
10 which there was 10 claim /
or pretense that the polygamy /
question had the remOtest rela-
ton? Judge Zane, after disposing
Of the Cumberland case because
that question did relate 10 it, con-
eiuded with the remark: ..For the
same reason the writ asked for in
the case Of John II. Back against !
r. Morris, registrar, and in the case
IF William J. Bachman vs.. +. R.
clute, registrar, should be Genied.-
This is where the surprise comes /
a. The reasons given for the de-
lial in The Cumberland case. can
Tot possibly apply TO the Back or the |
case, for the same ques-
ion was not involved in them. In (
net the argument Of His Honor, {
nd his clear drawing Of the line
etwcen the Judicial and ministerial :
overs Of the registrars, 20 10 es-
'biish the conclusion that the !
erempt0ry writ denied in the
cumberland case must logically
.gally and certainly lie in the other !
20 cases.
II the registrars had only minis
rial functions outside Of matters 7
.iatiug 10 p5lygamy, ANA the Back =
nj Bachman eases had no connec- /
}u Herewith, either claimed or p
lplied, and the officers refused TO
'rfOrm their plain ministerial
lily, then they should have been
nIHelied by mandate Of the court
perform it, that those voters. in ii
e language Of the court might he 81
detected in the lawful exercise of n TT
sht ''that is one Of The most i'm CO
rtaut that any man can enjoy in pa
Is c0untry.'' az
If there We're any reasons what. W
er Why the writ was denied in nc
csc cases, the court failed to pro- 10
zee them. His words. :.for the Sc
me reasons, " show that either he te
j not understand these two cases Of
d conOunded them with the other is
that he erred in not giving some ia
rtinent reason Tor denying their
3licatiOn.
The closing sentence Of the opin- wi
is nothing short Of extraordinary. Go
c rest Of it we regard as based ON eie
nj grounds and just what might re-
expected from a judicial mind s''
z Judge Zaue's. It establishes
important point that outside Of
sstions aud matters relating t.
ygamous practices, the registra-
officers have no judicial or
dictionary functions, that their Pr
'ers are purely ministerial, and
they can only reGuseor ohstruct
isiration at their peril Of civil ere
and criminal prosecution. eur
-;