The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1902-01-14
LAWYERS SCORE
SUPREME COURT
Varian and Lee Address the Bai
Association.
CRITICISE RECENT DECISIONS
SALARY CASE INCLUDED AND
SPEECHES WERE APPLAUDED
CRITICISE RECENT DECISIONS

SALARY CASE IECLUDED AND
SPEECHES WERE APPLAUDED
Utah's most august Judicial tribunal.
the supreme court of the state was
the recipient q two scsthing criticisms
at last evenings meeting OF the State
Bar association The criticisms were
embraced in the addresses of c. s.
Tarian president Of the associat ton
and w. A. Lee. member. and were
based upon the opinions Of the court I'm
the marjamus cases Of Thoreson KS.
state board Dc examiners. Wright VS..
county commissioners Of Weber coun-
t.. and Wells VS.. Tingey, the latter be-
ing the salary case.
3-=sident Nari2n brought the matter
up in his annual address by saving that
there was one decision Of the supreme
court that particularly invited atten-
tial. He then referred to the case of
JIn-esOn vs.. the state board of exam
iner- and called attention to the fact
that IN the case under consideration
The court held that public officers in
uauaamUs proceedings against them.
could not plead in justification of
Dg-rerformance of a ministerial dutv
imposed by the statute. that the statute
Has i'm violation Of the constitution of
the state
Hard and Fast Rule.
The rUle lad down in. the case. Mr..
Eariln then said, was d hard and fast
one which admitted of no exception.
and cases supposed to support the hold
ing of the court were cited from va
I'ous states, some Of which, the speaker
declared, did nothing of the kind. He
said further that if this opinion was
30 stand S the law of the state. the
financial officers who are charged with
the collection and disbursement of pub
u. moneys are prohibited from in any
wise questioning the validity Of anv
act of the legislature directing the
auditing Of accounts and the disburse-
ment OF moneys III payment thereof.
But. Mr. Narian added, the court
has not rigidly adhered to the rule OF
the TEyresOn case
He then cited the opinion of the court
~ the case Of Wright Us. the county
commissioners of Weber county. i'm
winch the commissioners attempted to
defend an action against them upon
the ground that the statute in ques-
ton was unconstitutional. and the
court sustained their contention. but at
the same time declined to consider the
question as to whether or not thew
were ministerial officers. because the
parties to the proceedings so re-
Gucsted.
Baskin Dissented.
Tt was mentioned. however. that the
Justice lBaskin) who wrote the opinion
IN the lhoreson case diSsented in the
Wright case.
continuing. Mr. Varian referred to
the fact that in the case of Wells VS..
Iirgey the court passed upon the con-
sututional question presented. and
awarded a peremptOry writ without |
making any reference to the ThoresOn
case. and then added:
I'VE are not advised as to the reason. |
If any for distinguishing this case. 1t /
is true the issue was solely between |
the state and It's officers, and ali par
Ties were before the court. But in he |
Ih'rlSon case the state was also he |
fore the court. defending its school |
fund against an alleged demonstrations |
al statute"
Commenting further ON the Wells !
case, Mr. Narian said that the court !
without dissent upheld the statute in !
ITS entirety. and evidently considered |
the case within an exception to the rule |
laid down in the Thoreson case. IN |
admission. he then said. there is any
exception to the rule. i'm some deg.ee !
modified the effect Of the ThoresOn de- |
Cision.
Who Is Responsible
In conclusion, Mr. Varian asked If a |
public officer, charged with the safe
keeping of public funds, could not DIS
obey an unconstitutional demand ma lie |
hy the legislature upon money in His /
charge, who would be responsible if |
moneys were wrongfully disbursed?
The remainder OF Mr. Variants ad-
dress was devoted to a discussion of
the recent laws enacted by the legis-
Hture. and The need of increased sal
aries for the judiciary.
Mr. Lees address was upon the sub
y..t of The Uncertainty of Law: its
Cause and Remedy and he dived luto
the supreme court by saying that in
comparatively recent case d very L.
spectacle court had declared ,hat !
where the statute required an officer
&" perform a ministerial act. he wlll
not bee permitted 20 plead in justifica-
.'N of nom performance that the act
".u.. violate the constitution"
."ls was the ThoresOn case. and III.
L-a declared that in a somewhat
-.a-.lE opinion containing many cita-
..Hs none of which supported the .Ioc-
N'H.. the court succeeded in convincing
Itself o- the correctness Of the rule"
Could Not Be Law.
Attention was also directed to the
.a.I That the statute under which the
action wds brought provided that Il
... ". mandate might issue TO compel
... .fa'mdnCe OF an act which the
socially enjOins, and Mr.. Lee
>... il the writ can only issue 10