The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-02-01
MISTAKE. OR WHAT:

We give place to the following letter
because an injustice appears to have
been done to an old resident of Utah
and a staunch Democrat who is never
afraid to stand by his opinions on any
public question:
Edito- Salt Lake Daily Herald:
/ notice in the Ogden Standard of the
30th, a brief notice Of what III d
johnson, who stumped the territory for
the cause Of Democracy, spoke out
I think the decision is right. The
attack on Judge Miner is Contempt
BILE
Now sir as ] am the only H D.
johnson who stumped the territory"
as aforesaid. Of whom I have any
knowledge, 1 beg to assure you, as well
as the reporter Of the Standard, that
unless there is another person Of the
above name, there is mistake some
where, as 1 know nothing about the
case OF which the reporter treats. and
he either knows and has interviewed
another Fl. D. Johnson or has made
great mistake, seeing that ! not only
know nothing but have said nothing
about Judge Miners decision.
II. d. JOHNSON.
The Herald is perfectly Indifferent to
anything and everything that appears
in the paper above mentioned, and
since we have discovered its petty tao
tics and shutting, unprofessional and
contemplate course. we pay no atten-
ton to it whatever. 1t is only out of
regard to Mr. johnson that we permit
mention of it in these columns.
As 10 the Hamer matter, it is or will
be in the hands Of the Supreme Court
The explanations of the case, which ap--
peared in The Herald. causing some
stir in Weber county. became neces-
sary because Of the Misrepresentation
that had been made to Mr. Hamer's
injury. The criticisms of Judge Miners
decision were simply quotations from
his opinion placed by the side Of the
facts and 10y the side Of each other. If
they constituted an attack on the
Judge the fault is not ours.
The decisions of courts are proper
subjects Of public comment. The Her
aid said nothing as to the merits of the
case until the remarkable opinion of
Judge Miner was published. There is
not a line of vituperation in The Her
aid editorial on the subject. The views
cf various attorneys as to the decis-
ion may be more or less interesting.
The Herald has heard a number which
are entirely in accord with what we
have said about IL Many others strong
ly criticize Judge Miners decision in
the Berlin case. They have a right
to do so Judges are not any more
sovereign or any less public servants
than Presidents and legislators.
The gentlemen who practice before
Judge Miner are quite prudent in their
endeavors to smooth over the incon-
gruities in his Hamer decision. If
the Supreme court of the territory
should take as lenient a view Of his
mistakes as they do, and give his pc
culiar opinion the seal of their appro-
bation, It viii be in order for them to
plume themselves on their sagacity
as they do now, doubtless, on their
business discretion
Meanwhile the facts and figures set
forth in The Herald have not been i'm
peached. and they seem to form what
is called ar attack on Judge Miner.
The Herald is not conscious of any such
proceedings, and thinks the judges
apologists viii show more wisdom by
that silence which is said to be golden,
than by attracting further attention
to the singular rulings which have oc-
casioned 50 much comment.