New-York tribune., 1871-10-21
POLYGADfY ON TRIAT.

OPINION OF CHIEF-JUSTICE MKEAN ON THE
BRIGHAM YOUNG CASE.
IRON AN OCCASIONAL CORRESPONDENT or THH TRIBUNE |
SALT LAKE CITg, Oct. 12.-The 1Ct that
Brigham Young has appeared in Court to to the
charge Of "lasciviOus Intercourse" with l6 wives is
great point gained for the Of right and terrible
humiliation to the prophet No lnacqusnted with
the fanatics that has reigned here .E Of yeas
form any idea Of the Importance of this triumph %
law and ordar. few years ago Br gham SOunR would
snapped his fingers at the Federal Judge but the
division in his camp the uncertainty VI the future,
and the known determination Of tho Government
70 support the officers Of justics have all suggested
obedience. He processes that "sOOpng TO conquer
and that is certain TO be fully acquitted OF all that is
charged against him. But he before was opposed
by the man Of energy and determination who now
the representatives Of the Cover and people Of the
United Gtates.
The following able opinion Of the Chef-JusSoe Do
lvered this in the Third District Court be
read With interest by the people everywhere:
oPrSrON OF CHEFJUsrCH KEAE.
SrA1MEST; The defendant Is Oted sS leSd and ooS
SI sDs % S Tug sS m .pT m.e Or .an ns ne
being married each other e.d o sOa, ..Ge.ts and .slsMs
by imprisonment not sloodng yeA and nOi s .h
Al the discretion si The Court" Laws Utah p So ~
contain. ss ss, .ss @ charge: & many .s3s.
limitations The defendant moves sash ni Indictment on the fol-
thereof s defendant chad with @ distinct and different f.lo1e.
alleged been committed 10 different times and places with 10
different the not being different parts Of ofnse
the ofsa such alleged ieones being
connected with esc other Second: That each and every
count Of d ind etrnen upon the fac. thereof
ofeusps any them, we're committed"
Mexican, c. J.-AthOugh the question Of selecting,
smmOning and impaJnelng the Grand Jury which pre-
scented the Indictment Is involved In the motion be-
fore the Court one OF the counsel for the defendant
tit in his remarks TO denounce the Jury having been
selected and impauneled In manner unprecedented
either in Europe America. Had the counsel first In
vesgated this question: he would have found that when
| and IA
selected friend Judge Snow, Of his counsel sal
upon the District and the Supreme Bench Of the Terri
tory grand jurors were for years selected summoned
| and impanneled precisely as they now And the
counsel would also have found that In reported
United States Judges, even within the 6tates have
sometimes found the State statutes inAppcable and
have ordered uries TO be procured substantially they
procured In this Territory But ell this has nothing
to do with the motion before the Court. The motion 4
quash assals the indctment-not the Grand Jury thai
One OF the counsel for the defendant has rightly said
that the Court should render such decision upon th
motion shall subserve the interests Of the public
the rights of the defendant What those interests
sides that at common law the Court might either grant
or refuse this motion, In the exercise OF sound dscre
tOn. Many authorities were cited the argument
tanning this proposition. One OF the counsel for the de
fndant sought to account for the fact that there
10 be preponderance OF authority against the granul
Of such motion to qunsh BY coDectung that when sucl
motions are granted, they ara not often reported HI
also urged that this Court not bound respect
decisions rendered outside Of this Territory unless theJ
be rendered by the supreme Court the United saCs
Without pausing 10 consider these arguments, le
us proceed 10 inquire what are the Interests Of the public
ana the rights Of the defendant involved IN this
tnn. II In Internationally 10 the interest h the public
that man Indicted for crime II guilty, should Do cOn