Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-03-20

| " must be noticed psfti ulhriF tht hii'
temporary right In tho Governor was -
b. confined 10 change place OF hpld-
Ing court In the district aud not to change
the districts
The ffnmena aud signcrs N the petition,
then, can hardly be held responsible
for the amendment of the bill contrary 70
their request.
That portion ofour letter which trciis
uftho question ~ whom previously, ne
lpngc1 the right 10 tx the time and place
Of holding suiilt seems ct hf-t sight un-
/ your charge ~ immodc-iyi but WIN
sVne consideration, u. pefilnoney can
b. seen. Tho Utah Legislature has al-
/ ready said that all causes Oi nction arising
/ IN certain counties should be tried ~
/ ccriain place. III this be law, our peti-
/ ton asking that the Governor have the
temporary right to change the placc. 81
holding court would be futile. Hence u
/ was necessary 10 consider whether We
wore asking Congress 10 delegate "
| lpgisinivo pnwor 20 our governor. ~ 20
whether out conclusion that the Utah law
on the subject l. inv Aid. u corrrri or not,
we shall not sinpto discuss. We are will
| ling 10 let the public decide In the IA
/ turc whether We are right OF NOT
WIN only ny In answer 20 your
statement That W. "appear TO have forgot
ten that Congrcs. empowered the Logs.
latlve Assembly 10 enact laws on All
/ rl-hifui subjects of legislation that
/ YOU omitted L. add, "noi inconsistent with
the Constitution aud laws " the United
staic.."--tho point upon which the pucs'
ton hinges.
A. To overlooking ''ihc necessity Tor
/ the preservation OF the consisioucy ui one
/ part Of their l0nfl statement with the rest
/ Of IT," will any, tnerc y no Inconsistency
/ In giving our personal conclusion thai
| the Governor already had the power ~
/ question, and nj the ~amo time say that !,
II doubtful whUnor he possesscs tho
powcr--not doubiful In our minds but In
the minds ~ others, among whom scein-
Ia be the SEw-.
The true inwar,inoss ~ your Insulting
aud abusive attack seems 20 be that our
letter was addressed to MIR. Edmunds
aud because you have no great respect
for him, all found In his company are 10
subjects for your abuse. We dc not
deem II necessary 10 explain why he was
addressed. further than TO say that u was
he who introduced the bill into the sem
ate.
Want Of age sceins tn be- another 81 our
conspicuous faults. As M. Plus reply
to Walpolo on q similar point is - well
known, we refrain from expressing
lHNNkUts htiNiAliN HhkA'"N'hf
A. 10 this bill a. amended hcing "tho
reduction of home rule Ia Utah. We
shall say little Were va responsible
sequences might be- here con.
sldcrcd. W. leave the NEw- and ilme
to -ay In what way q u possible for local
politics 10 nnoct tho rights ~ people
through this change. They eau also tell
~ II The gentlemen who administer Jus
ticc Ia u. aud who thus have Ia n meas
uro orr very lives ani property In their
hands. will exercise this Insignificant adj
ditionai authority 81 the dctrlmont of any
portion " the people. Another question
win ho whether II viii BE- possible 10
adopt more inron, enient system than
the prcscnt--court held In q Few ~ the
principal citiu- only aud the people thus
compelled to travel great distances, nj OK
pense TO protect their rights. We shall
not take a pessimistic yiav Of the c,ss
until some reasonable grounds for No do
Ing can be- gwen.
Tho editorial In question contains some
good doctrine on tie Necessity for con
tcuding Nor the rights Of tho sovereign
people, opposing every cncruachment on
their porogntivus,n otc., but all Of this
very good thunder when rightly used
hn- been misapplicd IN this ease. Il II
WI ~ W." ~, I'' sl'. W. u'n.,s W =.
the contention j. carried 70 tho minutest
detsll-,' u " easy TO oycf.iap The bounds
u prudence, and the wuuld.he protector
n..o,s = ..,o ,i s,uu , nVhni,n"
o,,pSo,in .,,a,,'s ~, n,s,,i s, co. no ~"
,srs ma, tbus Il, f,rs"I mna,,nr, lac ,ho
indlscrlmInaio use of abuse
We rogre, ,h,t Won have yiutoci ma
and linus brou@ht n. bcforc tho nnbIlc.
Respectfully,
CHAs. II. HAnr,
RIcii Ann Rion.
Lo0AS, Utah, March nth, 1901.
W r,,ch 1or ma. I.il.r How r,,ch
-. ma. -,
o"u'o 'hefe WIS 10. u''s oo"'''ioh M"
~" .'V' 'lv 49,, =" ~ NV ',o w
,f,.,. .'.,,',.,.,s' 49,, -, ,.','....
'he ot'n 'es'-'''"'u MI" kai" whlPof'
AIRY powers for the Governor which he
ought mn, In ,.orcIse will h..t N. ..on
/, ~, = - - go"
" ''P'"""V'ns Wv "'"o" '" ""Ion
they essay 10 reply, IL was rs fol.
lows,
a PLEA FOR POPULAR sruLTir1CA-
a1oS.
There IN q feature associated with
the bill creating u fourth Judicial dis.
trIct for Utah that seems 10 demand
sperlaI notice. In the original draft
,h. nuthorIty To establIsh III, nav, Ill.
, 10, ,,'as ,,as,,J n, ,,,h. ,,a... III
I,eglslatlye Assembly,D ID WINS s,Lse.
amended Lv strILin, o,,, al
,lia,i,,. Assa,,,i,i,y, All s.,,...'s
,L .1,,, ~. su"S''"''ns
'here'oI H"P'eho eo"f'.
The House committee Incorporated In