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

lshment for such crimes as this, of
which this married man seems proba-
bly, guilty, and they are inquirin. of
one another, and they ask the EETER-
PRISE this question: IT the public en-
tertain the feelings and opinions you
would express for them, why do they
not come forward after the three davs'
opportunity afforded them and give
the requisite bond of $1,000 and take
their pet from Jail! The proof of the
pudding, you know. etc. JrsTITIA.
There are only a few points in this wordy
effusion that demand an answer in order
to vindicate our own position with regard
to this case. Whatever Mitchell may
have said among his acquaintance is no
concern of ours, though his low boasting
may have reached the ears of the over
jealous justice who examined into his
case and may have exercised an nncon.
scious influence IN consigning the pris-
oner to trial.
Our correspondents clear legal demon
stration that the offender could not be
held upon the charges of seduction or
adultery, throws additional light upon the
subject We had been at a loss to under
stand why the apparently untenable charge
of rape was brought; it appears that this
was the only offense that could To
charged, even by the reckless distortion of
law and evidence. We have never at
tempted to defend Mitchell nor have we
heard any such attempt; he committed a
dastardly villainous offense; but that
offense was not proven to answer the legal
exposition of the crime of rape, as we be-
lieve will be shown when the case IS
brought before higher court and an .un
prejudiced jury,
Referring to the charge that we sup
pressed a portion of the evidence in the
case, we will say that we published all the
material testimony, and further we ven-
ture the opinion that no disinterested
jurist would consider the crime charged
established, if full weight were given to
the testimony of the proscutrix (which we
published in fully, and all other evidence
in the case stricken out.
The writer of this letter undermines his
own position by using the terms "down-
fall of virtue" and 9.triumph of licentious-
ness" as neither of those phrases could
apply to case where the act was accem
plished by force; in such case it would be
the "triumph Of physical might" virtue
remaining unimpaired.
The great number of our most worthy
and reputable business men of this town.
whose opinions we obtained before writ
ing the article which has produced sJus-
titia's" reply, will not feel highly compli-
mented at hearing themselves referred to
as .sthe public boot-heeln lowest of
the low. Why those same gentlemen, anv
selection from whom would have been
necessarily accepted as bail for Mitchell,
did not go upon bis bonds, we do not
know nor do we care. a mans guilt or in
nocence of the crime for which he is COM
mitted has little to do in the public mind
as to whether it is advisable to risk So, 900
upon his appearance for trial.
In concluding this hurried review of a
letter handed us for publication at late
hour, we will only reiteratc in explicit
language our opinion that Mitchell is Il
deep offender against society and deserves
the general exccration he receiving, but
further. that it has not been shown that he
probably committed the crime of rape, nor
that, as stated by Judge Budlong in COM
mitting him, there is evidence enough
to convict him of the offense before
jury.
Blockade On the Oregon Short Line
Of the recent blockade the Wood River
Times says: s.The road was bloc ckadcd by
snow near Montpelier, east of Pocatello.