The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-05

use it for fifty years. Next, that same
administration invested n good many
| thousand dollars in East Jordan Canal
stock, which was never contemplated at
all, 1t being a diversion and waste OF
the taxpayers money. Third, IN place
of getting water TO put in the Big Cot.
| tonwood conduit, as thc administration
| pledged itself 10 do. it got no water ut
all that could be diverted into tho in
| take, but left the American admins.
tration lawsuit to get the water which
was necessary from the Knudscn water
right, but which the American party
administration was able later on to ob.
tain on fair terms We insisted then
that those things were betrayals Of the
people, and were contrary TO the pledges
| made when the vote authorizing the
bonds was taken. And yet the News
did not, on any of these questions, raise
is voice in condemnation OF what that
treacherous administration was doing.
And il has the supreme impudence and
gall to charge those things now upon
the American party.
The church organ makes The follow
ing paragraph of its editorial the ''ker.
mel in the NUT of it's vicious, false,
and vindictive assault upon the Ameri-
can party in the matter of the " stock
ade':
But the question at present is whether
American" party officials have permit
ted the erection OF that institution IN
this city against the protests Of the cit-
zens' against the law, and In hagTant
violation Of the decent sentiment OF ihls
community. That Is what the people are
concerned about Just now.
AS usual, the church organ misstates
the case; it is not question of what
tho American party officials have done
in this matter at all. For, the incor.
poration under which the .'red light
district was established. was issued
by the State. Everything that is done,
or that has been done, was in pursuance
of authority given by the State in the
corporation issued by the State. When
the American club aud American party
citizens protested against the estab
lishment Of the 'red light district
the court then took jurisdiction and
forbade the putting up of any such
stockade, or running any unlawful bust
ness therein. The matter has ever since
been under the direct special iurisdic.
tion Of the court. and if anything has
been done in The nature referred to by
the News, il has been done in contempt
Of court, in defiance Of the court s or
der. It is said that the Injunction is
not directed TO the sheriff; but the
sheriff, as the ex officio executive off
Ger Of the court, should see that the
court S orders are obeyed. In the case
of the Chattanooga sheriff, who had in
charge prisoner, the Supreme Court of
the United States had taken charge Of
the case. and in due course intended to
review the proceedings with view of
ascertaining their regularity. In the
meantime, however. the negro was
lynchcd but though the court had is.
sued no injunction 10 the sheriff, yet it
holds him in contempt because it was
his duty TO protect the negro, since the
court had assumed jurisdiction Of his
case. And So here, though no direct or
der may have been directed to Sheriff
Sharp, he is the executive officer of
the court, and as such, it is his bust
ness TO enforce the orders Of the court
and see that they are obeyed. This he
has couspicuously failed to do. He
should therefore, as in the case of the
Chattanooga sheriff. be held in con-
tempt Of court, as also, all concerned
in the violation of that order. every
member Of that company which the
State incorporated, and which is alleged
10 be doing a vile business, thus viola
ting the court s order; all should be
cited, along with the sheriff, and the
whole crowd should be sent to jail until
they come TO a rightful sense of their
duty TO enforce and obey the orders Of
the court.
TTTDrr 1yuNJnpDcnNr, nraTII