The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-06-04
Councilman Elliot is no longer

Councilman Elliot is no longer a
councilman. He is Eek
Benjamin T. Lloyd is no longer
citizen Of strictly private character;
he is an official.
The supreme court did it yesterday
with an opinion.
AS result the ex-councilman will
not vote aye or nay on any motions in
the future. 1t will not make any differ
ence to him whether the contract for
electric lights is approved or not.
Justice Bartcn delivered the opinion
of the supreme court, which was
handed down at the morning session.
The title of the case is so well known
and the circumstances connected with
it are SO familiar to the public, that a
repetition of the same is hardly worth
mentioning, but in brief the res
gestae" is this or are these:
Joseph M. Watson was a member of
the city council of this city. He was
a member at the time of the election
in 1895 and when afterwards he died
Benjamin r. Elliot was appointed to
fill the vacancy. AT the expiration of
the term ending January 1, 1896, Elliott
was selected as a councilman from the
Third precinct and Lloyd contested
the place, contending that he should
be the man who would fill out the term
beginning at the first of the year.
The case was taken before Judge
street, who decided in favor of the
plaintiff and from the decision Elliot
appealed.
The court said yesterday that the
principal question to be determined was
Was there a vacancy at the time Of
the appointn ent?"
Elliot set UP that there was no legal
election in the year 1898, among other
things which he brought before the
court and this was one of the main
contentious in the brief of his counsel
The court held that whether the cleo
ton was legal or not, Mr.. Watson
the Office. If Watson had a prede-
cessor after the election of 1895, he,
the predecessor, must have abandoned
or yielded the office. for there is Moth
ing in the record to show that coun-
Gilman Watson's right to the place was
ever challenged. If the election was
lawful his death created a vacancy. If
unlawful, the surrender of the previous
lawful incumbent created a vacancy.
The court, among other rulings by
courts, quoted the decision of Justice
Miner in the case of the people VS..
Hardy, Sth Utah 6S in which the court
said:
THE right to hold Office until the
successor is elected and qualified is
as much part of the term of office
as is the regular period prescribed by
the statute
The judgment of the lower court was
affirmed with costs.
Zane. chief justice, and Miner, JUS
tice, concur.
INDIAN LAND LEASE.
Justice Bartch rendered the opinion
in the case of the Strawberry Valley
Cattle company, respondent, VS.. John
l. Chapman, appellant.
This action was brought before JUS
tice Miner to enjoin the defendant and
appellant from permitting his sheep
to Craze upon the lands forming por-
ton of the Uintah Indian reservation.
Plaintiff and respondent in this case
claimed the right by virtue of lease
made with Indian Agent Robert
Waugh, who was acting under the d.
rection of the secretary of the interior,
on behalf of the Uintah and White
river Indians, the consent to lease the
land having been given by both tribes
in council assembled and the lease
having been signed by eighteen of the
chiefs and head men of the tribes.
This lease was originally given to
Charles H. Homer, under the provisions
of an act of congress, passed in 1891
The acreage involved was 645, 900 and it
was stipulated that lessee should have
the same for five years as an annual
rental of S7,100. Grazing of sheep was
forbidden, under penalty of forfeiture
of the rights under the lease.
The testimony showed that defen.
| dant's sheep grazed upon the land in
question and destroyed the grass and
verdure. After notice to quit, which
was disregarded, plaintiff and re-
spondent went into court and obtained
! a restraining order, the decision oil
the court below being that plaintiff
was entitled to the possession of the
| land. A motion for a new trial was
made and refused, and from the de
cision of the court below the appellant
and defendant appealed to the supreme
cours.
Appellants attorneys allege that the
lease is void because there is no au.
! thority in law for making it. That the
statute of 1891 is of no force. Respon.
/ dent relied upon the statute.
There was a question as to the righ1
of the Indians to lease under this
law, which states, among other things
that lands must be bought and paie
for" by the parties owning and occupy
| ing the same before lease can be-
made.
Hence, in the language of the opin.
| ion, the controlling point was whether
the Indians who occupied the lands il
question at the time OF the execution
of the lease bought and paid for
them.
The courts opinion in the case Gov
cred all the usages of the government
in dealing with Indians, their right:
under the law, and decided that the
savages had a title and could agree t
lease. The judgment of the lowe,
court was affirmed with costs, Chic
Justice and Judge Street, who wa.
called to sit in the case, concurring.
LEGAL COMB ICATIONC