The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-10-15
In which the Territory Has Been
Made to Play an UnWiss and
Expensive Part,
At the Suggestion Of a Rich Pri-
Yate Corporation.

at Lne suggestion or a Rlen FL
4 Yats Corporation.
The city papers, on Thursday, con.
tanned the following items, copied
from the clerks minutes of Wednss-
days District Court proceedings:
Wells, Fargo & Co., VS.. W. G. VIII
lisms 81 al; dismissed at PLAINTIFF cost.
Wells, Fargo q Co. vs.. n. G. Shurt-
lift ct al ; dismissed at PLAINTIFF cost.
a few months ago the court min
utes read:
The People, ETC., vs.. b. G. Shurtliff;
robbery; on motion of defendsnt's coun-
sci, the district attorney consenting,
ordered that The action be dismissed.
| The People, etc, VS.. Ella Shurtlifi
same order.
The items occAsioned some COM
ment, chiefly on account OF the prom
lnence that has been given these
cases IN the court during the past
ihree OF four years. We refer As
much, or more, to the criminal &C
tious As 10 he civil, al having g COM
mon source and growing out of
single hflaiT-1Amely, the robbery OF
Wells. Fargo & Co.'S express car uu
the Utah Central RAILROAD, in 1876.
The public ia familiar with the cir
cumstsnce, and also. doubtless, with
the Wells, Fargo Misunderstanding
cases. II not, It should be. The
newspapers, at least. are, FOR few, if
any suite, civil or criminal, have
ever been before the Utah |
courts wlieA isxed moro severely
the neWspa per columns. Last
winter the criminal actions were dis
missed, and DOW that the civil suits |
have been similarly disposed of, there |
can be DO harm in saying these cases,
from their institution years ago.
until nov, have reflected credit upon
neither Wells, Fargo & Co., nor the
public prosecutor for this territory.
On the contrary, the entire conduct
of the proceeding has been rather dis
creditable. On the one hand it has
looked as il rich and influential
corporation were using its power 10
oppress individuals, and brighten,
shame or cOerce them into q comics.
sion of guilt; and on the other, it has
lad the appearance Of the prescott
ing officers unWarrautably lending |
the criminal Law and employing the
money and Influence of the state to
aid the corporation IN its raid upon
the regulations and puIses of private
parties. The prosecutors may hold
themselves iustifable for the
part they have played in the
Wells, Fargo quarrel with the
Shurtlifls, but the public does not
hold them blsmeless aud would be
even more severe in its criticisms if
it knew how much Of the public fund
bad been squandered in a foolish
attempt to convict the Shurtlifis of
crime, or fTighten, or scandalIzs them
into giving the Express Company
$40. coo. We believe that is the sum
sued for. The corporation was rob-
bed. No one can doubt that. And
honest people would be grstified to
earn OF the recovery of the money,
and the punishment of the robbers;
but at the same time honest people
10 not sanction the course that has
been pursued by Wells, Fargo & Co,
and the district attorney of Utah in
heir efforts to discover and punish
the guilty parties. On the part of
he company it has looked as il the
recovery Of the money rather than
The puuisnmert of the guilty was
lppermost, and it has seemed that
he prosecutors have permitted them
selves to be used to that end also.
The messenger Was tried, convicted.
sentenced and confined in the Peni-
.entiary; but that proceeding did not
return to Wells, Fargo & Co., the
stolen money, hence bigger fish we're
10 be fried. A bargain was entered
INTO between Williams, the convict
the express company and
The District Attorney, the terms
being that Williams should obtain
bis liberty for swearing the Shurtliffs
we're his oo-conspirstors, and partners
in the execution of the robbery. By
some jugglery peculiar to the
OF justice in this terri
tory, the messeDger-ths only person
known to be guilty of, or even impli-
Gated 10, the robbery-is at large, and
We bellows, a free man, little punish
ment having been inflicted upon him
though be confessed to his share in
tue crime. The price that be paid
for his liberty Nks little enough for a
man OF bis character, and it should
have hsen too small TO satisfy the
Williams swore that the
ShurtllGs were alike guilty with him,
and he even went farther, ipdulging in
g coWardly and mos; despicable assault
upon the character of lady, filling
the social atmosphere with most
cruel SANDER OF Mrs. Shurtlifi. We |
we'll the indignation felt
in the community, not against the
maligned lady, but sgsinst the wretch |
who asssiled Der, aud the parties who |
permitted and encouraged i. The |
testimony of Williams was un-
supported, in R1y important par
ticular, and the prosecution must
have known it would be so; hence |
was the district attorney too con6ding
when be agreed to accept the traitor
messengers confession and unsup !
ported accusation against others as
full satisfaction for term In the
penitentiary. The prosecution should
have known that no honest jury
would convict the Shurtliis upon
the unsupported assertion of the
robber messenger; aud it is clear that
it did know it, because, failing to get
verdict in one case the other vas
never brought to Trial, and both were
soon dismissed. Now the civil suits
have been abandoned without trial
at the cost Of the plaintiffs, slso
showing that the latter had no
good case against the accused
for the recovery OF the money, any
more than the prosecuting officers
bad for the conviction of the parties.
Altogether, these suits look as il 8
good deal of systematic bull-dozing
had been prscticed, in which the
district attorney has permitted the.
Law to be used and the money of the
TERRITORY to be epent in helping o
great corporation to crafty its spite
against private individuals. 1t will