Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-01-18
Supreme Bench Decides Judge
Brown Cannot Exercise Auth
GRITTY Over Adults.
PARENT HAS THE FIRST RIGHT.
Absolute Control of Children is Vested
In Father and Mother Unul They
Arc Disqualified.

anu justice Strdup, me cases IN
volved are those Of Emil Mil IN be-
half Of his son, Albert f. Mn, against
Willis Brown. Judge OF the Juvenile
court. and Emma sahlberg. an adult,
against Judge Brown. In both cases
writs of habeas corpus were asked and
granted by the supreme court and both
the boy and the woman were ordered
discharged,
The opinion OF the court holds that
the adult section Of the juvenile court
law is unconstitutional and that the
juvenile court has no jurisdiction to try
adults charged with misdemeanor or
any offense This is the most vital part
OF the whole law as It IL conceded to b.
almost impossible to handle the chill
dren successfully unless the court can
get at the parents and other ADULTS who
are In many cases responsible for the
delinquencies of the child
QUESTION OF APPOINTMENT.
The question as to the legality of the
appointment OF a judge of the court by
commission Is touched upon as be-
ing one of the most serious constitu-
tional objections TO the law but rs 1t
effects the Judge OF the court and not
the law itself. the supreme court re-
fuses to pass upon IL in these cases IN
which the law itself is the issue and
not the judge. The matter of his APP
pointment and his eligibility to hold
office, the opinion states, should be
tested in a separate and direct action
brought for that purpose alone. II sug-
gests, however. that the legality of the
appointment of the judge by commits
Il nYf fn1 IN ll tn
ular matter the opinion has the fol-
lowing:
There are some constitutional objec-
tons TO certain portions of the act that
are more serious, however, namely: The
objection that respondents appoint
rnent Is delegated to special commits
sion created by the act, and that his
salary Is to be AGED BY such commits
giog, to be paid out OF the city treasury.
rnssyS we'll be said to reach ir they do
not 70 beyond, the limit of the legis-
lature to Invade local self-government.
as the same is implied by the spirit, il
not the letter, of our Constitution.
These are matters upon which we en-
terrain serious doubts. But. as these
matters go again to the right of the re-
spondent to discharge the duties of the
office as an officer de jure merely, We
cannot, in this proceeding. pass upon or
decide them.
Moreover as at present advised, we
assume. hut do not decide. that even IL
the portions OF the act above referred
to were held to be bad. that they are
not so connected with the other por-
lions of the act as to vitiate the whole
law. The act would still create a de
jure Office which could be filled by de
facto officer, and all the other portions
dealing with and affecting juvenile de-
linquents would still stand and be made
effective in accordance with the true
spirit and intent of the act taken as
whole. This does not apply to sec
ton I. to which we will refer hereafter.
The court goes on TO hold that the
other constitutional and le.a objec-
lions raised by the petitioner, Mil. are
untenable and cites numerous authori-
ties in support thereof. These ohiec-
lions include the right of trial by jury.
the want OF arraisnmen and plea, the
suspending of judgment or sentence
the manner OF examination or trial
the making OF a child a witness against
himself. the want Of notice 10 the pa
rent, the dispensing with the >rant
ana arresting the child and BRINGING
him before the court. The opinion
points out that an examination In
juvenile court Is not ;rial. and that
the only object sought Is the good of
the child.
TRIAL OF Adults.
The court holds. however. that sec.
ton Z, relating TO the trial Of adults
In the court. is unconstitutional The
opinion ON this point says:
The foregoing does not apply To sec
ton OF said chapter By the provi-
sions OF said section the juvenile court
deals directly with adult persons. While
the provisions OF section are entirely
no Ia a. -
main act the acts denounced In sec
ton 7 are made mlsdemeanor aud
are thus crime within the purvlew
both OF the constitution and the Grim
NAL code Of this state. AS we have
already pointed out, the proceedings OF
the juvenile court do not fall. nor are
they intended to come within what IS
termed criminal procedure. nor are the
acts therein mentioned, as applied tp
children, crimes,
TO constitute the act under section
OF an adult crime entities such
adult TO the right Of trial as for any
other crime. This right Is denied by
said section T. and II cannot. therefore
be upheld. quite true. some method
is necessary 10 punish adults when In
terfering with children who may be
held 10 be wards of the state and no
doubt IL is proper for the legislature
20 provide for their punishment. When
such is done, however. trial must be
provided for in the proper forms and
IN legal manner Section OF the act.
for the reason that Il violates this ele-
mentary provision, eo 10 speak, OF crlm-
lnal law and procedure must. there
fore be held of no force ar effect This,
however, in no way affects the other
provisions or sections Of the act"
As 10 the reasons FOR dlscharging
the Mil boy from the custody of the
court, the opinion states that II must
firsi be afiirmativoly shown that the
parent Of the child has forfeited his
NATURAL and legal right To tho custody
Of the child by reason OF his failure.
inability. neglect or Incompetence to
discharge the duty and thus enjoy tho
right In this case such was not ar,
hrmatlYely shown. hence the state
could not be substituted as guardian
OF the child and assume It's custody 20
the exclusion OF the parent The sahl-
berg woman In discharged for the rea-
son that the adult section 81 the law
IS unconstitutional as stated above.
METHODS CONDEMNED.
As to the method of procedure used
By Judge Brown IN conducting cases
before him, the opinion OF the supreme
court has nothing but condemnation.
The opinion contains the following