The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-04-17
IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT

IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT.
The use made Of the alleged occu
psncy Of the ''rcd-Ight distric,
stockade' by the Smoot "MouthD is
as usual, both false and dishonest. Its
assalling of County ATTORNEY Lyon in
this connection is not for the purpose
OF purity; 1t is not for the purpose of
| keeping the dcmi-monde out Of the red.
| ilSht; 1T is SIMPLY in vindictive revenge
against the county attorney because
that official undertakes TO recover for
the taxpayers the money which the
county commissioners stole from the
public treasury for the benefit of the
Mouth - in the publication of the de-
llnquent. tax list last December As
has been repeatedly pointed out, the
price given to the "Mouth'' for that
publication was an illegal price, and
the money paid for that publication
was robbery Of the public, a partisan
graft, without the least excuse. And
now, because the county attorney is do.
ing his clear duty made mandatory up.
on him by the statute. the "Mouth''
uses the red-light district occupancy TO
assail the county attorney and arraipn
HIM before the community as remiss in
his duty in not bringing prosecutions
against those who are alleged to have
pursued their unlawful calling in that
red-light district.
Rut ic 1-o11 l,pn,y, H.
district is in the hands of the court,
and the court process In force against
its occupancy is an injunction forbid
ding that occupancy and forbidding the
prosecution of the illegal and disre-
putable business of the demi-monde in
that place. That injunction is directed
to the sheriff. A violation of it sub
Jects those who are guilty of such viola
tiou TO punishment for contempt of
court, And that is the proper proceed
ure to take in the premises in case
there arc such occupants doing that H.
legal business there, in defiance of the
injunction which is in force until the
final hearing of the case is ordered by
the court, when 1T will probably be
made permanent.
This being the true and legal phase
of the proposition, it is evident that
County Attorney Lyon is not in the
least shirking his duty because he does
not prosecute those persons under the
statute which forbids the exercise of
their calling in defiance Of the iujunc-
tion of the court. 1t IS the court s.
business to protect lis own injunction,
and TO deal as for the contempt shown
with those who are guilty of that con-
tempt. The court process was directed |
10 the sheriff, and it is the sheriff's |
business to see that it is respected, and |
not disobeyed The sheriff's office |
recognized this fact when we pointed !
case in view Of the offeuses as com
planned Of in the "Mouth.'' The com.
plant of that "Mouth' was, as usual, !
and originated in unworthy |
and mendacious motives. Those mo-
tives were not zeal for the law nor
for the purity of the community, but
were based on vindictiveness against
the county attorney because he was
doing his duty under the law and un-
lertaking TO recover for the taxpayers
money illegally paid out to that
Mouth from tho public treasury. 1t
is manifest that complaint which
violates the facts as to the legal status
Of the case and which is based on the
Of the CRATER caught in his
robberies and in peril of having to make
restitution for the flcccing of the pub.
ic he has committed, is not to be
treated by the community as of any
great weight.
II follows, further, that since the
,ffeuse complained of, if it in fact ex.
SITS, is a matter Of contempt of court
n the violation Of an injunction placed
Until the court can finally determine
he question, that the city administra.
ion is not subject to the call made upon
t by the ''Mouth,'' The court pro.
cess was not directed to the chief of
police Of this city, He has no func-
ion to perform with regard to it.
Under the general statutes, it is true,
e he finds violation Of the law or
ordinance In the red.lght district, or
elsewhere, it is his duty TO see that
aw and order are enforced. But with
respect to this injunction against the
of the red-light district and
The business that is supposed to be car
ried on therein, the court process is
directed to the sheriff, and not to the
chief of police. And whatever viola.
tions of the injunction are complained
Of, the sheriff evidently is the one at