The New York herald., 1871-10-20
TIE TRIAL or BRIGHAM YOUNG.
Federal Authority VS.. POlysa-
mic TheOcracy.
Judge McKean Overrlles the Mo-
ton to Quash the Indictment.

ton to Quash the Indictment.
On the llth inst Justice McKean delivered the
following decision - Salt Lake City ON the notion
TO quash the indictment against Brigham Young.
who IL charged with cohabitng with sixteen
w0men,-
The defendant is indicted for lewd ana lsscfv,oua
association ana cohabitatton with sixteen women,
not being married TO them. The indictment Is
under the following statute:- ax faag
ANY man or NO. being married 70 each other.
Every such psrson . osudns .ns bs pSnsa by i'm
nSs ns s an and mot r., . g
o oP he :' con, a;n one C 4 both =
The indictment contains sixteen counts ana
charges as many offences, extending from the year
1884 70 the present time there being no staIute OF
limitations. The defendant moves 10 Quash thls In
dctmenu on the following grouns:-
E,,Th.. IN said Indictment :. appears upon .As fac.
Sss:sa
Of s: w 1 alleged 0D's
saD~i-That each and every count OF said Indictment
s. face :s s.
any Of them committed. fet
MoKEAN, c. J.-AlIhough the question OF selecting,
summOning and impanellinK the Grand Jury which
presented the indictment is not involved IN tho
motion before the Court, one OF the counsel for the
Jury as having been selected and impanelled IN .
manner unprecedented either In Europe or America.
would have found that when Brigham Young was
Governor OF tins Territory. ana his selected
upon she District and the Supreme Bench Of the
Territory Grand Jurors were for years selected.
are And the counsei woai also have Z found @ ISas
In reported cases United states Judges, even within
the States, have sometimes found tho state statutes
inappicabe, and have orqered iures to be procured
substantially as they are procured In this TerrtQry>
But al tins has nothing to do with the motion be-
Tore the Court. The motion TO guash ass6is the In
dtctment-not the Grand Jury that found it. lie. w
return therefore, TO the record.
One OF the counsel for the defendant has rightly
SAID that the Court should render such decision
upon this motion as shall subserve the interests OF
@ % aS a M M ~ s ssP, Tas
agreed by counsel on both sides that at common law
the Court might either grant Or refuse this motion,
tnorties were cited on the argument sustaining tha
proposition. One OF the counsel for the defendants
sought to account Tor the fact thai there seems td
be preponderance Of authority against the grant,
Ing OF such motion TO quash, by conjecturing that
reported. He also urged tnat this Court mot bound
to respect any decisions rendered !, oqtscs an o. tn
Court Of ihe Uplted States. -
Without pausing now 70 consider these arguments
Jet us proceed to inquire what are the interests OF
the public and the rights OF the defendant, as
volved In this notion II IS unquestlonably to the
Interest Of me public that man indicted FOR crime.
and tnat too with as little delay as may be consistent
with the rights OF the accused ana with those safe
guards which experience has approved, But will II
promote the interests and rights either OF the pub
lie or OF an accused citizen TO have many indict-
mens and many trials ior offences or the class
rather than one Indictment and one trial covering
the whUef The Court Is bound 10 presume that the
Scred the sixteen charges contained In this in,
dIctment. II, now the Court should grant the
q the ana as s
Jury, which Is not yet discharged would he In duty
bound to find sixteen new indictments Or. II the
Court should compel tho prosecution to elect TO go
TO trial on some one count only, striking out The
Others then the Grand Jury would be In duty bound
AnA ma NJ Ainf ma
event the deTendant would be subjected TO sixteen
indictments aud sixteen trials. How this could pro-
the interests and rights either OF the public or
OF the defendant Is not easy to perceive, nay ~
difiicult TO imagine anything more haraSsng and
counsel for the defendant failed to show wherein
this would oe any favor 70 their Client Had sixteen
OF one could not the defendants urge with.
irresistible arguments, that they should be consoli
but IL there not some legislation bearing upon
this question: BY act OF Congress, approved FeD-
ever there are shall be several charges against
any person or persons for the same act or transac
necied together or Tor two or more acts or ransac
tons OF the same class OF crimes or offences which
indictments, the whole may be Joined in one indict.
ment IN separa,e co9ats; and Two Or m0ie indie t.
mns ssa De onna ~ sncn cses the Court may
What is the just construction Of this statute
~ me % ingenious nr. saoss q % one o. sne
reasonings and opinions or other courts still
In may be prudent first to listen TO those
courts and see II their decision he reason
able In the United States va Bickford, tne
indictment contained one hundred counts, each
same class. On motion 10 quash, the Court refused.
holding that the Ioinder OF the distinct elones
United States Va O'Csllahsn the same doctrine Is
held. These decisions are entitled to great respect
Supreme Court OF the United states and their Asso
clate District Judges. Indeed 30 OBVIOUSLY reas0na-
one aqa could escS
ciuSlOn .lN
quash, the meaning OF two words, "associate' andA
"cohaot' must be carefully kept IN mind. Webster
dennes "associate" thus:-"1o join IN company, e.,
ut conveys the idea OF intimate union"
He thus defines ..cohaom:''-"To dwell or live to-
gether as husband aud wife; usually or often ap
pied TO persons not legally married."
The offence charged In each count could not be
To commit such an offence continuous and some
what protracted period OF time Is necessary There
Is nothing in this obligation.
The learned counsel for the defendant need not
be assured that any motion winch they may make
IN behalf oil their client shall be patiently heard and
carefully considered Nor does the Court intend TO
restrict them IN their arguments, EXCEPT upon qucs
both sides, ana the Court aso Keep constantly IN
mnd the uncommon character OF this case. The
Supreme Court OF California has wen said, courts
bound to take notice OF the political and social
condition OF the country which they politically rule"
II Is therefore proper to say that while the
Young" ITS other and real tile Ii Federal
Authority versus Poyganc rheocracy." The gov
ernment OF the United states founded upon writ
consitution finds within It's jurisdiction apoher
goyernment-claimng TO come from God--i,nb~r,Ia
Ia inperto-whose policy and practice, IN gr vc
particulars are at variance with It's own. the one
government arrests the other In the person OF It's
Chief and arraigns IL at this bar. system is ON
trial In the person OF Brigham Young Let all con.
cerned keep this Tact steadily IN view aud let that
government rule without rival which shall prove
TO be in the right IL the learned counsel for the
defendant viii adduce authorities or principles
from the whole range OF Jurisprudence or from
mental, moral or social science, proving that the
p0lygamic practices charged IN the indictment are
not crimes this Court will at quash this indct-
ment and charge the Grand Jury TO md NO more OF
the kind.
The pending motion to quash Is overruied.