Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-03-22
Investigation Of the Charges Preferred
Against U. S, Commissioners.
THIS MoRSlSs's PROCEEDINGS.
Commissioner Martin TELLS His story,
aud LX.Dtpnty Marshal Joe Bush
Follows on the stand.

In the Third District court room. The
hearing brought together q large con.
couioc Of interested spectators, among
whom there was considerable
sprlnkliug VI attornoys.
The investigating committee las
chosen by the Supreme court) consisted
OF Dlsiric, Attorney VRrlau, Judge
Howatn aud Judge Thomas Marshall.
For the petitioners Attorneys J. II.
Hurd, Chus. Baldwin and John NJ.
Cannon appeared; Commissioner Mar
tin was represented by Judge Loot
borrow, anu Judge Judd was present
In the Interests Ut Commisaioncr Meyer.
When "timc" was called Judge
Judd remarked that the charges hero
set forth seemed 10 DO mostly matters
Of Implication or inference, aud alto
gethet based upon rumors. lilo read
from the petition presented to the
Territorial supreme court judges last
"Wednesday (the lull text OF which has
previously appeared In this NEws), de.
clurod that the allegations were untrue
IN TACT, untrue In theory, md said that
~ far as Mr.. Meyers Official conduct
was concerned ~ cummisnloner, he
was prepared. to Icy it.oprn In the barest
manner pgAsible, Tor Investigation. Mr..
Meyer hud never, ut any time, done or
said anything In Any way that was
corrupt or looked 10 cofruption-that
was not in perfect harmony and con.
sOnance with judicial i1tegrity and
upright anu honest citizenship. Al 10
that part OF the petition setting forth
that "ihry anu each OF them tine said
cOmmissiOnen) have done ana suffered
various other wrongful aud improper
acts aud practice-, b0tn Ia clYil and
crimiual cases and otherwise TO the
manifest dotfimUnt aud pefver.iOn OF
| Justice aud oppression Of litigants In
their costs, and tending to bring tho
administration OF Justice into con-
| tempt, aud burdcuing the docket OF
| the district curt with appeals anu
trivinl anu gr0unultss caiUa," he
moved TO either have 1t stricken out
| or that the committee make a fulu upon
| the gentlemen who brought the
charges that they offer some specifics.
ton OF what they meant by these
general allegations. IL vas not proper
That counsel should be expected 10
meet any such general indictment ms
that contained In the petition.
Attorney Hufd insisted that there
had been an ample specification ma ie.
Judge LOOibOurow said tuat he, too,
would like 10 council TOR the petitioners
10 state definitely ON what limos they
expected to prosecute, II they relied on
this general allegation.
Attorney VArlan, chairman OF tho
committee, said the committee were OF
opinion that they had no power %
modify the petition In any part. 1t
was In the nature OF complaint,
which hal been submitted 10 the
supreme court and presumably in.
specled by that body. The motion
could not be sustained.
The Witnesses to be called during the
Investigation were then invited to
come forward and be sworn, and quite
"a forest OF hands went up.
Commissioner MARIN was the fret
examined. In answer 10 Attorney
Hurd he said lie was appointed u. s.
commissioner between tho 10th and
26th Janu ny, 1892. During the interval
he had had on his docket upwards OF
$40 civil cases. He was questioned in
regard TO fees which he mad received
la certain cases entered In his court,
and as 10 the rule OF service
IN others. None Of the plaintiffs had,
he declared, served their own sum.
monses, so lar ~ he knew. Witness
opened up terminal docket ut the
same time, and sixteen cases had since
been commenced with him. Mr.. Martin
was iuterTogated as to the disposal OF
these. In one case, II transpired, n
youth named Freed went into the
commissioners Office, stated that he
had had an alteration with another
young man, aud that he desired TO
plead guilty. In the meantime com.
plant had been entered In g mmission.
or Pratps court by the Injured party.
Witness told him that he did not think
he had any authority to ilne him, as
he Freed was not under arrest. He
was then, however, formally subjected
10 arrest and witness fined him 81 and
costs, the latter amounting to So.
Attorney Balawin-Dld you swear
anybody
Witness-No, sir; l just took his
plea.
Attorney Hurd, among other items
In the commissioners docket, directed
attention to an entry Of 81 for Issuing
warrant, and asked, sis that the
usual charger"
The witness said he believed no; but
1t was pointed out that 81 was allowed
by the statute.
In the CASE OF tho People VA. Carl
DammaD, who was charged with
selling WHISKY on sunday, II trans
pired that although the fine was paid
on August lst, 1892, the money was
not turned into the county treasury
until March 18th, ls93--aiter the pres.
ent proceedings had been instituted.
In that Of the People VI. John
Phillips, the complaining witness was
charged $500 for commissioner fees
prior to the hearing, but the charge
was ignored by the grand Jury.
In another case 1t was shown that al-
though the defendant, who was dis
charged, paid s., co,Isof arrnignment,
etc., tho same was not dockeied at all.
Owns the complaining witness In
court when the case was dismissed?"
asked MIR. Hurd.
The witness did not think he was.
"What did you do with the S. costs
which the defendant paid2" queried
Mr.. Hurd.
"Why, / kept 50 and gave the officer
who made the arrest So" was the an
swer.
Asked whether there were any other