The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-22
NO USE DENYING 1T.

NO USE DENYING IT.
The reversal of himself by Judge
Bartch in the application for a writ of
prohibition, is a matter of mirth
among some people and of modification
to others. Lawyers laugh over it, men
who dislike to see the bench brought
into derision are va1ed about it.
But our neighhor, the Tribune, in
its usual inconsiderate and inconsistent
manner, not only defends the judges
action but denies that he has done any
thing of the kind. 1t says: The writ
of prohibition was not passed upon"
We stated that it was, and the Tribune
appeals TO the record.
If by that is meant the record of the
court we answer. the record is not
complete until passed upon by the
judge. The clerk had the matter all
right when the judge denied the writ.
The newspapers had it reported so.
The lawyers who made the application
so understood it. And Attorney Zane,
with the approval of the Tribune, COM
mented upon it in that paper in an in
sulting manner. But between the
rendering of the decision and the MAX
ing up Of the record, Judge Bartch had
time to change his mind and also his
ruling. 50 the court record viii pro-
badly show to the contrary of the de-
clsIon as it was given in court and
generally understood.
But from other remarks of the Tri-
bune we are led to suppose it means
the record of the trial as published in
the papers. All right ;let us go to that
record. We viii take the Trtisune's re-
port, not that it is any better than the
others, but so that 1T cannot WiSgie out
of the matter. These are the concluding
words of the opinion of Judge Bartch
given in full
THE writ of mandate is granted.
The writ of prohibition is denied
What does that mean? The report
is the same in all the papers, and was
so made officially by the court clerk.
As to the reasons for the denial, the
fact of that denial remains, whatever
they may have been, and that is the
point now in dispute. The Judge did
ing that fact. It is true the Tribune,
with its usual faulty, over the very
article which showed that the writ of
prohibition was denied, put the head
line Democrats Defeated In All The
Contests" a fiat falsehood refuted in
the contest. But next day it Showed
that things were left in Something of
a muddle'' through that decision, and
gave particulars about the dispute of
attorneys, the day after the decision,
over the costs in the prohibition case,
in these words:
During the argument, Judge Bartch's
action in denying the writ Of prohibi-
ton was again referred to, and Judge
ground he held that the writ did not
The question of costs being sprung
Judge Zane is reported by the Tribune
as saying:
I've made out such a good case that
they conceded it, but under Your
Honor's ruling the costs are thrown
upon U.s."
''As to that" replied Judge Bartch,
Il can only say that in deciding a case
the court would not consider the mat
/ Ter Of costs but would let them follow
the ruling"
SO much from the court report given
by our perverse contemporary. Now
for its own editorial comment:
THE writ of prohibition to prevent
the Commission from going into the
ballot boxes to recount the votes, and
to prohibit the Commission from issu-
| ing certificates of election to persons
other than the petitioners is denied by
the Court, on the ground that the Com.
mission had already invaded the ballot
boxes, and inaSmuch as the defendants
had, in open court, agreed to issue GER
| tificateS on the returns, there is nc
occasion for granting the WritS. "-Tri.
bune editorial, Jan. II.
We need go no further in dernonstra-
ton of the fact that Judge Bartch did
deny the writ of prohibition, and did
say the costs should go with that rul-
ing. Now if to prevent that being his
decision of record and thus throw tha
costs on the defendants is not reversing
himself, what is it?
| What as the use, then, of the Tribune
attempting to deny the patent fact
saying there was mo decisiou," nnd
as a bluff, appealing to the record?
/ The question of costs has been a. great
trouble to the Tribune and the
counsel for the petitioners, and THAT
was what prompted the Tribune to pass
round the hat for anything less than
five dollars a drop. 1t is of no use for
the Tribune to try to dodge this plain
matter of record. Judge Bartch did
deny the writ of prohibition. If he and
the Tribune were to swear to the con-
trary before heaven and earth the
truth would remain, and its brazen de-