The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-04-30
AN 1MpRAoTIoABLE DODGE.

AN IMPRACTICABLE DODGE.
It would seem as though the position
Of the Office of the County Attorney
with respect to prosecutions under th'
liouor law. is not only nnwarrantcd
] but is founded upon some misapprehen
sion. Mr. Wiley. the county attorney
declares that the prosecutions under the
liquor law should be made by the city
since il is the city that gets the reve
nue. from the liquor traffic. In this
however, Mr.. Wiley confuses two prop.
ositiops, the license fee and the fuei
which might he imposed. il is quite
true that the city gets the licenses from
the sale of liquor; but that has nothing
TO do with prosecutions; and the city
need not get the fines imposed on
those who violate the law. The pro-
vision of the statute is (see page 1885,
Revised Laws of 1907 that ''fines i'm
| posed by the district court shall be
| turned into the State treasury, except
such fines as are imposed bv the dis
trict court in cases appealed from city
or municipal court, which such fines,
when collected, shall be by the county
clerk covered one.half into the city
treasury and oue-half into the State
treasury
1t appears from this that If the
county attorney would do his duty in
prosecuting violations of the law, the
whole fine imposed by the district court
would 90 into the State treasury, and
not into the city treasury. 1t is only
ia cases where the district court im-
poses fines in cases appealed from the
city court, that the city would get any
portion Of the fines. County Attorney
Wiley, therefore, is acting directly in
opposition to the interest Of the State
in declining to prosecute these cases.
He is making present to the city oil
half the fine in every case; for ii is fair
to presume, as the practice uniformly is,
that anv case where conviction is had
in the city court, appeal would be taken
to the district court. In that case, the |
city would get half of the fine which |
the district court would impose, where
as, if the County Attorney prosecuted
the State would get all of the fines.
Again, the position of the County At
torney is faulty in this, that there is
10 compulsion upon the part of the city
TO cmbody in their ordi.
rance requiring liquor sellers to pay IL
'cnso to the city, any penal provisions.
The city can fairly leave all cases of
-iolatiop of the law TO the State, since
uch prosecutions have eventually to be
II the State courts, a prosecution in the
ity court never terminating the ease
But. since the district court has to deal
With the matter eventually. IL might
ust as we'll take it up IN the first place,
nd the county authorities proceed ac-
ordpg to law.
The city police, as a matter Of law
he enforcement of the statutes as we'll (
S of the ordinances. But the city pays
II of the expenses of its police depart
rent. and docs not call upon the State
0 pay any part thereof.
The position of the County Attorney,
nerefore. in undertaking to make this
hole matter turn on the question or
evenuc and finance. is faulty, for no
Ich line of dcmarkation can be drawn,
nd no division of authority or enforce
'cnt Of the law, based purely upon the
nancia return. can be applied. The
ty pays very large sum of money
nnuallv TO support it's police force
his force is obliged to do service to
1c State, for which the State never
avs ANYTHING. The district courts are
by the State for the pur- i
osc Of enforcing the law. and the city i
avs far more than its proportion into I
lie state treasury for the support of i
nc district courts and the enforcement I
the laws through their agency \
On every account, therefore, the city h
entitled TO the protection of the {
tate in the enforcement through tho o
Istrjct court of the liquor law, as of +
lher laws, There is no pretense that t
rcausc a murder is committed in this :
ty the municipality must pay the F
,st of prosecuting the murderer, nor a
! any other crime is there claim {
rat the city must prosecute and the 2
lstrict courts be inactive II is only q
! the case of the liquor law, as APP n
ears, that this new Interpretation of II
uties. responsibilities. and revenues. is r
It no; and it is plea that will not h
itself to the public, nor can n
o for one moment believe that it will
itself to the courts.