The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-03
THE CARBON COUNTY TROUBLE.
Helper. Carbon County,
December 81. 1894
.itor 81 The Hera.ld.

To the Editor Of The Herald:
Concerning the question of the ina
bility Of the Carbon county officials
elect TO qualify, does not section u of
the Edmunds- Tucker law relieve TIN.
probate Judge of the responsibility of
approving county officers bonds and
shift that responsibility to the county
icourt The probate Judge is, Of
course, member of the county court,
but, in case of his inability to act, 'The
members present may select one of their
number 70 preside" CSection 1S1. Vol.
! l. Again il the authority is not
judicial&one with the probate judge,
why cannot the county clerk approve
the bonds? By giving this official
| bond question your attention and the
citizens and officials of Carbon county
your opinion they will be-, greatly OBJ
| liged, very respectfully.
A SUBSCRIBER.
We are of the opinion that the points
put forth by our correspondent are not
well taken. The acceptance and APP
prevail of bonds from public officers is
not, in our view. a judicial act
1t is not jurisdiction" in the
meaning Of the section cited of
the Edmunds-Tucker act, which was
intended, no doubt, to take from
j the probate courts jurisdiction in
divorce cases and confine 1t strictly to
matters of probate, direct and inciden-
tai
Nor do we think that section ISL,
Compiled Laws of Utah, which simply
provides for presiding officer of a
county court in absence Of the Probate
Judge, devolves the duty of providing
bonds upon that officer. The act in re-
llation to county officers provides that
, some county officers may have their
: bonds approved by the county court,
| but in other cases it provides that they
shall be approved by the Probate
Judge. and it was evidently the intent
of the law that in these cases the
county court should not perform that
duty but only the Probate Judge in
person.
However, we. think there is a rem.
edy for the difficulty under which Ger.
bon county is now laboring. One view
OF the matter is this: The Probate
Judge county held jurisdiction over tht
|
pointed. Does he not retain it until
by new appointment of the Presiden
of the United States, he shall be re
lieved of that part of his duties which
are comprehended in the portion of hi
sphere of operations now included il
Carbon county?
The organization Of Carbon count.
;o1 or
gress under which Probate Judges ar
to be appointed by the President is no
affected by the act of the territorial
legislature. Therefore the Probat
Judge of Emery county may still hol,
jurisdiction over all the region com
pretended in that county when he re
, lceived his appointment, because tn
President has appointed no other per
son to supercede him in any par
:, thereof.
If this veiw Of the matter be correct
the officers-elect of the new county ca
qualify under the approval of the Pro
: bate Judge who is still in Office, an
!. the bonds can be filed in the Office @
! the Carbon county clerk.
\ Another view of the matter is tina
r the Legislature may enlarge or curta
i the boundaries of any county or, as i
n this case, create a new county out c
: part of it and the limits of the juris
o diction Of the Probate Judge actin
e therein would be the lines of the cour
e ty as formed by the Legislature. 1
+ that case the Probate Judge of Elmer
: county would have no right to ac
:. outside it's boundaries as at presen
n constituted.
That might perhaps hold good as