The daily enterprise. [volume] (Livingston, Mont.) 1883-1884, 1884-01-09
The Mitchell Examination.

Your announcement in your issue of
the 7th that the holding Of Donald
Mitchell to answer upon charge of
rape created more public surprise than
that of his arrest, has created no small
amount OF private surprise. Was
there anythingin the history and char.
acter of Mitchell so assuring to the
public as to cause surprise that he had
used force to accomplish purpose the
public knew was consnmmated? Was
the source of the public surprise that
he was arrested for rape aught but the
assertions of 4 villain glorying in his
hellish exploits for nearly day while
passing from one saloon and gaming
table to another, where he met kindred
spirits to lisnize him for his gentle
manly accomplishments, while the
young victim of his lust was consigned
to that obscurity which must shadow
her through life! How did the public
SO suddenly conclude that no prosecu-
ton would follow his crime! It was
consutnmated about 2 O. clock Il. m. of
the Sd inst, and the details arranged
for the arrest and warrant issued the
same day. while the statute does not
bar prosecution under one year.
So, also, were that same public sur
prised that he was held to answer. !
would respectfully inquire from what
data the public drew its conclusions,
unless it should be from the story
started by Mitchell while the attorney
was arranging the complaint for his
arrest, heralded by his cohorts who
place very. low estimate on female
virtue. and who seem to think our
good Montana Mormon statute throws
toomuch protection around virgin inno-
cence. You will pardon me for saying
that if the only means of knowing
facts sufficient to form Il correct and
just decision by the public in this mat.
ter are the reports OF the case in tho
ENTERPRISE, then the public knows
but little of the facts which constitute
the ..foreibie means,' the s'intimida-
tion,'' the slack of CONSENT which
are the essential ingredients Of rape,
and which distinguish the acts of
Mitchell as such, contradistinguished
from seduction or adultery, as they do
not appear in said report as they were
given in evidence and many of them
suppressed. There they stand as un-
contradicted evidence. True, Mitch
ell denied them upon his oath. But
the ENTERPRISE nowhere informs the
public that his testimony was contra
dicted in every material point by phys
ical facts, and the testimony of from
two to four witnesses. anu these con-
troverted points so interspercl
throughout his account of the affair as
to brand his whole story as false in
inception and detail, and altogether
unworthy Of credence.
Let us now examine the pretended
anxiety of the ENTERPRISE and the
public that Mitchell should be prose-
cuted for seduction. In the first place
there is wanting the first element of
seduction. namely, promise of mar
riage, as Mitchell's victim knew him
to be married man. Again. All action
for seduction is civil and not criminal,
and the measure Of damage is the loss
of time and the expense of rearing the
offspring. So, also, was this case lack
ing the elements of adultery under our
statutes, AS Mitchell to be subjected to
punishment for adultery must abandon
his wife and live and cohabit with an
other woman. So there was no alul-
tefy in this case. The pretended de-
sire for milder punishment than for
rape, is shallow and hypocritical, or is
the offspring of that ignorance which
cilaracterizes that judgment Of the
public expressed in the ENTERPRISE.
Rather would believe the public re-
ferred to is That portion of our popula-
tion who rejoice in the downfall of
virtue and in the triumph of licentious-
ness, which adds one more victim to
the list Of subjects of mans passion.
II the ENTERPRISE concludes that it
expresses the feelings Of the better