The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-01-10


pages, and is clear and concise.
Under the present law this report
Should have covered only the period
from Jan. to Dec. l, 1886; but as other
executive officers are required to make
report Of their transactions for the
year ending Dec. 81, and in view Of
the fact that the law relating TO this
department viii probably be changed
so as to secure uniformity in all re-
ports, it has been deemed advisable to
bring the present report down TO
Dec. 81
The encouragement says in part:
The change from territorial con-
ditions TO that OF statehood brought
with it many radical Innovations TO
our system of laws. The constitution
adopted by the people, which became
operative Jan. 4, 1886, provided that
al territorial laws heretofore in force
and not repugnant thereto should re-
main in force unit! they expired by
their own limitations or were altered
or repealed by the legislature, While
those ia conflict should yield and be-
come imperative Thus it at once be-
came a question as To what laws were
carried forward under the cOnstitu-
ton and what were rendered nUgatory
thereby. Out OF this uncertainty have
tions throughout the state, which
were required TO be settled by some
one .u authority before officials could
discharge the functions of their re-
spectIVe offices with any assurance
that they We're proceeding upon proper
lines. These questions have naturally
and necessarily gravitated to this Of
fee. Again the legislature at its first
session in 1896 made numerous amend
ments TO the old laws. which were
carried forward by the constitution
and also enacted new laws made nee
essary by the changed conditions in
augurated under II.
While this body was composed of
men, equal, if not superior in intelli-
gence TO the average of such bodies,
and while in a general sense their leg
islatiOn was cOmmendable. the laws
passed by il contain many inaccuracies
and conflicting provisions which have
been the occasion of numerous in
quiries to this office from officials
throughout the state for information
in relation thereto.
Then again, nearly all of the state
officers and those in charge of state
institutions and members of state
boards a the beginning of the year |
We're without experience in the particu-
lar official duties which confronted |
them under the new condition OF things |
and without diSparagement to them il |
may be said that many questions have |
arisen in relation to their duties as |
public officers which have necessitated |
official opinions from this department.
All these things, together with the Of
fetal duties of this Office in the prep
aretiOn and trial of cases in the SUI
preme and district courts of the state
and also as a member of several state
boards, have resulted in placing a
greater burden upon this office than
should have been required to be borne
under existing conditions and more
than an efficient discharge of public
duty would justly. l have given all my
time and best efforts TO the public
service during the year, and yet | fear
that the Overburdened condition of af-
fairs III this department has often COM
PEELED more hurried examination and |
Of questions of public
concern than was compatible with the
public service. Yet | DO not feel to
complain, for esteem il a great honor,
as we'll as q rleasure to have been
identified, even IN a modest way with
The incipient growth of the future
great state of Utah
OPINIONS.
The encouragement then states that
during The year this office has prnmul-
gated to the various officials entitled
Inder the law TO demand them, III
written opinions, involving 173 distinct
propositions of law OF this number -
we're interpretations or constructions of
itdtuteS and II involved questions OF
law. The opinions referred
o have from time to time been printed
n The Herald
LITIGATION.
Under the law il is made the dut.,
# the encouragement TO attend the
supreme court and all other courts of
he United States and defend all
auses 10 which the state is -'artV.
among the more important civil and ,
riminal cases disposed of during the
ear the attorney general cites the fol- ;
owing, giving also the questions in i
olVed: State VS.. J. c. McNally: ter +
TORY OF Utah vs. Salt Lake county: s
tate vs.. {. 4. Stanton, clerk etc: Salt I
AXE county rs. Morgan Richards. jr.. I
tate auditor; Weber county VS.. z r ;
iurlburt, collector; state vs.. Albert 2. !
ioiden; state VS. Frank DeCano. +
Iorris L. Ritchie vs.. the state board of +
anVassers: state VS.. Patrick Coughlin; q
tate vs.. Frederick George; state vs. +
larry Hays. state vs.. Daniel Kesler. v
EXPORTS FROM COUNTY ATTOR- t
NEYS. t
The report shows that reports have !
cen received from all the county at "
lutte and Rich. The attorney general, L
l commenting upon the reports re- @
aived from the different county at a
)rne--s, says:
In a number of the counties the re-
ort did not include cases in the JUS
ces' courts, While in two no reports
hatever have been received. The
tme is true of table No. , {
This condition ought L. be provided
yainst III future. and under the head G
Recommendations, further on
i'll be found suggestions intending 10
,ver this point. 1t viii also be OBJ
rived that the percentage of convic-
ons as compared with the whole -
amber of cases disposed of is not as =
tisfactory as could be wished. It
lows either that there are many i'll =
lYiSed prosecutions that ought never /
have been commenced, or that there
I'VE been miscarriages of Justice,
here convictions should have been
cured This is especially true of
bic No. .. which relates to Drosecu-
ms in the several district courts of
e state.
THE convictions in Justices courts
q little less than so per cent of the
ses tried, while in the district courts
e per cent of convictions is less than
A combined report of all cases
osecuted in both justices and district
urts shows convictions TO be less than
per cent of the cases disposed Of"
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Under the head of Recommends
MS" Mr.. Bishop suggests that the