Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-27
is THAT ORDINANCE Waldo
An Argument by Raxlins That
shows Up the City,s ssCrusade,'
i'm Its True Light.

The case as to the validity of the ordi
nance under which the recent arrests fol
lewd and lascivious conduct were made
came up in the Third District Court this
morning. Inside the bar were the lead
ing lawyers of the city, besides the coun.
sci in the case, which included the firm
of Williams & Young and City Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney Moyle, for Ire city,
and Sheeks & Rawlins for the petitioner,
Vandercook. In the hall outside of the
rail large crowd of spectators was pres
ent, many of whom probably were justi-
fed in thinking themselves particularly
interested in this test case.
Mr.. Joseph L. Rawlins began the argu-
ment by reading the petition for the writ
OF hdbeas corpus, the warrant upon which
Mr.. Nandercook was arrested, the COM
plant on which the warrant was issued,
and the ordinance under which this arrest
was made.
This ordinance provides for the punish
ment of lewd and lascivious conduct and
prostitution within the limits of the city,
but is broad enough to cover the rela-
tons between husband and wife it is
also
APPLICABLE TO MALE AND FEMALE ALIKE.
All parties connected with the offense are
equally liable.
The ordinance relating to various mis-
demeanors within the limits of the city
empowers the corporation to restrain
games OF chance, bawdy houses
and other disorderly places, and
to punish the keepers thereof; to re-
strain and punish street. walkers,
beggars and mendicants. 1t does not
refer to the mere single act of a person
who is not defined as a prostitute. The
law clearly, and in unambiguous terms, /
defines the powers of the corporation and
the punishment of crimes within the
charge. The law authorizes the punish 1
ment OF prostitutes and the keepers of
houses of prostitution. The section also
provides for the peace, happiness and
safety of the people within the corpora
ton, but does not refer to morality in the |
least
THE QUESTION FOR DECISION
Is whether the city has the power, under
the ordinance, to punish for adultery and |
fornication. Any reasonable doubt as to
the powers of the corporation is resolved
against the corporation. The Supreme
Court of the United States has SO decided.
This decision brings the matter to the
very verge. The expression of one thing
is the exclusion of another thing. The
Legislature has given the city power to
punish prostitution, but is dumb on
matters regarding general morality, or
she restraining of adultery and fornica-
ion. When the Legislature gives the
power to punish prostitution, the power
% restrain and punish adultery and for
lication is excluded unless otherwise pro-
7ided for. Webster and the law diction-
lries define prostitution. No ordinance
AN enlarge or diminish its powers.
In 1876 an act defining and providing
for a series of crimes, in
ludlng prostitution, fornication and
dultery,
WAS REPEALED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
was In operation when the present /,
harter and ordinance were under which 1
his ACTON is brought The Legislature
OF only repealed that act, but did not .
ubstitute anything in its stead. 1t then
eclared the policy of the Territory re- j.,
arding adultery and other crimes against =
hastily, and that these crimes !
'uld not be punished by the y
in this Territory. The Ii
WIS must be uniform and enforced inn
artially. The history of this Territory
pels the idea that the city has the
over to punish crimes of this character. n
ne specific rules of the corporation must n
,t controvert the general laws of the
ate. p
lie LAWS OF THE STATE OPERATE IN THE
CORPORATION l.
we'll as elsewhere, unless otherwise ID
divided. A statute that appears on III
e Statute book is presumed to be valid, sc
1t there is no such reference as to ordin- \
ces. There is nothing here, strain it as W
u will which grants the power to pun dc
4 this oftense. Distort language as TT
u may, there is nothing in this ordin- ell
ce that expresses the power to punish III
violation OF chastity. The Supreme ST
urt holds the officer a criminal who co
dertakes to serve warrant bv virtue tel
such an ordinance. Speculation, ha
ACKMAIL AND FRAUD HAVE DEVELOPED We
the course of actions of this kind. This 70,
finance is so much waste paper. There 90
causes why municipality should not oh
npel a man to vindicate his character.
e police court is summary. 1t is be-
e grand jury and jury of his peers
It man should be called in /.
ense of his character. This ordi- asl
ice makes it impossible for man to
end his good name. 1t is monstrous :,
bsurd. 1t is not in the interest of vii
nd morality and good law that this :,
tier has been taken up. 1t is not to the
tect the young from the allurements PHI
wicked women, but shows the policy
Ne to drag unsuspecting citizens into NJ
Ps TO DESTROY THEIR GOOD NAMES. the