The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-22
AN UGLY ADMISSION.

On Friday, Mr.. Eli B. Kelsey, talking
with representative of THE HERALD
regarding the proceedings against the
former for alleged unlawful cohabita-
ton, when asked if he attributed the
prosecution to the District Attorney,
said no; that he laid it to somebody's
private spite Continuing, "Mr. Dickson
told Mr. Bird that he would not have
brought the case up himself" How are
we to take this remark? What is its full
meaning? Mr.. Kelsey being a man Of
truth, we will have TO accept his words
as meaning just what they say, and they
say that the District Attorney would not
have brought the prosecution had he not
been spurred on toit by personal enemy
Ga friend would never have urged it) to
the accused. Is this the manner in which
Mr.. Dickson IS conducting his office?
Is he permitting enemies to individuals
to lay charges and bring prosecutions
out of spite, or is he operating in the
interest of law and justice? Why would
he not have brought this prosecution
had he not been spurred on toit2 What
is there about the case that would have
restrained Mr.. Dickson ifAeft to his own
wishes in the premises?
In whatever light you may place the
matter it makes the District Attorney
present an exceedingly ugly appearance.
Mr.. Kelsey is non-Mormon, but hap
pens to cling to one practice counte-
nanced and encouraged by the faith
and church to which he was formerly
attached; for this practice he
is to be prosecuted, though he
would not have been molested
by the District Attorney had it not been
for the interference of some one who
had personal spite against him. In
other and palmer words, Mr.. Kelsey,
being a nonMormon. the prosecuting
officer, if left to himself, would wink at
his ofense, while straining every nerve
and employing his shrewdest endeavors
to punish Aormons. This is true if
there is good ground for instituting
pros ecution against Mr.. Kelsey, and if
there is no such ground, then Mr. Dick
son is permitting himself, his Office and
the courts to be used to scandalize and
annoy private citizen against whom
another private citizen holds grudge.
If the District Attorney does not figure
very awkwardly i'm this proceeding,
then we do not understand
the meaning of words. An ex-
PLANTATION on his part would
be entirely proper and fail1re to
explain will certainly give occasion
for suspicious and criticism that ought
not to arise in reference to an official
who is doing his whole duty honestly
and honorably, and without fear or
favor.
THE HERALD is aware that the Ed
munds law was intended to
operate wholly against Mormons.
1t was framed by anti Mormons,
passed byanti-Mormons, approved by an
anti-Mormon and is being applied by
anti-Mormons. 1t was not the inten-
ton that it should be applied to non
Mormcns, and to make it SO apply
would be an exceedingly unpopular
proceeding for those engaged in the dis
tortion" of the plain intent of the act.
Nevertheless, the law itself does cover
the cases of n-Mormons, and we
know of no good reason why a mans
religion, or his want of re-
ligion, should be taken into
consideration by the courts and pros
ecuting officer in the application of the
act. We know of nothing that can excuse
the District Attorney for saying that
he would not bring a prosecution for
unlawful cohabitation against a nom
Mormon were he not urged or in
fuenced' to do so. THE HERALD is
sorry for Mr.. Dickson, because he has
for the moment been thrown off his
ground and gotten himself into this IL
enviable predicament. The way for him
to get out OF the scrape is to show by his
conduct that he is impartial and not
Yindictive; that he has no favorites in
the performance of the duties which he
has accepted.