Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-07
Az IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT


The validity Of the city ordinances as
published IN the revision Of 1892 Is called
Mn question, In an effort 10 liberate two
prisoners convicted OF battery. a VIII
cf habeas corpus has been applied for
E8nd the case is before Judge Lewis,
&but viii probably 80 up to the Supreme
court before It Is finally disposed Of
That, however remains to be seen.
II may not be improper to show the
principal points involved In the DIS
pute, although no decision has been rem
dered in this particular case because
the validity of the entire Revised Or
cIinances Of 1892 is clled IN question,
and that is of general Importance It
Ia claimed, so We understand, that there
was no aye and nay vote called on the
passage Of the revision. and therefore
It was not enacted according to law
The record IL appears, does not show
that this requisition was complied With
Whether an omission in the record
would serve to invalldste the entire set
Of city ordinances, IL q question for Il
court Of competent jurisdiction to de-
eide.
But there are some provisions OF
law that are open 10 everybodys eS-
animation, and are proper 10 be cited
in newspaper and elsewhere The
salt Lake city charter OF Jan. 20, 1860
contains this provision.
sec. ~. All ordinances of the city
may be proven by the seal Of the cor
poration, and when printed or published
In book FORM purporting TO be printed
or published by the authority OF the
City Council, the same shall be re-
celyed In evidence In all courts or places
without further proof.
The same provision is found in the
charter of 1888. In the Revised stat
ties OF 1898 the following proylso is
given to Section 2o5:
That whenever a revision Is made
md the revised ordinances are pub
ished by authority Of the city coun-
eli, no further publication shall be
deemed necessary. The city recorder
shall record all ordinances In book,
kept for that purpose together with
the afiidavits OF publication by the
publisher or his agent or II posted,
With certificates OF the due posting
thereof; and said book, or certified
copy OF the ordinances, under the seal
Of the city, shall be received az evil
al. sntt
further proof or II printed In book or
pamphlet form by authority Of the city
council, they shall be so received
We turn TO page 5i2 Of the book con-
tanning the Revised Ordinances OF 1892.
ana find a certificate with the seal Of
the city as follows;
Passed and approved by the city
council OF Salt Lake City, Utah Ter
ritory, December 9th, 1892 and referred
TO the mayor for his approval
&C. y. STANTON,
CITY Recorder"
II, c. Il. Loufbourow president Of the
Salt Lake City Council. do hereby
certify that the bill for An Ordinance
Revising the ordinances of Salt Lake
City, was passed by the city council of
Salt Lake city, Territory Of Utah, ON
December 20, 1892, notwithstanding the
objections Of the mayor thereto two
thirds OF said council elect voting in
the affirmative
G. +. LoUFROUROW,
President OF the Salt Lake City Council
Attest; G. +. Stanton. City Recorder
That certificate bears also the seal Of
the city. The originals Of these docu-
ments can doubtless be found, and, 70
an ordinary but careful reader would
seem TO be conclusive evidence as TO
the passage Of the revision as required
in the charters from which We have
quoted. But supposng that they are
not so received. and the Revised Or
dlnances OF 1892 are declared invalid
because OF some negligence In recording
he manner OF their passage what then?
Why II will be found that every or
dlnance previously enacted hy he city
Council win be in force, unless repealed
subsequent 10 the passage OF the re-
VI on Of 1892 For their repeal by that
revision Is void If the whole revision is
void Those ordinances are Of record
and among them are the ordiQance pro-
yidng a penalty FOR assault and bat.
terry, passed February "a. 1855. and one
on two previous occasions The pun.
7hment for that crime is a fine not ex-
eeeding one hundred dollars. OF Inn
nrlsonment not 10 exceed one hundred
lays, OF both, whether the Revised
Ordinances as they appear in book form
aith the seal OF the city are pronounced
valid or not.
These citations are given for general
Information. II they have been con-
ddered In the conduct OF the case we
ave not heard of II. We DO not pre-
sume 10 suggest anything to counsel
,ngared. but We think every point tina,
sla;os to Il ought to be considered by
ne public. who are as much interested !
n the matter as are the lawyers And
SIC know thar in some questions for
judicial decision the city has not al-
Ways bad benefit Of thorough and CONF
,iete representation.