Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-07-15
NO IMMUNITY.

The officers of the law are after Mr.
George Reynolds again, presumably 10
unlawful cohabitation this time. Wha
gives special interest to the case of Mr.
Reynolds is the fact that he has served
one term OF imprisonment for violating
the law Of 1862 against polygamy; bu
such is not the charge against him in the
present case, SO far as can be learned. L
Mr.. Reynolds is violating that part o
the law that relates to unlawful
cohabitation, is there any reason why he
| should not be punished for such violation
although he has suffered punishment fol
an offense of much the same nature here.
tofore? 1t is true that it may seem some
what harsh to punish him again, but by
what reasoning or under what rule is a
man to be relieved Of the consequences OF
bis own acts if those acts are in violation
of the law, although he has suffered pun
shment before for the same act? One
punishment does not give immunity from
future punishment for a future crime.
The law takes no heed of the person who
commits a crime, but of the crime and
Furnishes its perpetrator. When a man
mas committed an ofense against the law
and has been punished for the same, it
is essentially thing of the past of which
no account is taken. AS his offense and
punishment are of the past in the one in
stance, so mans subsequent offense is
separate affair, and so is its punishment.
Such being the case, is Mr.. Reynolds
entitled to immunity from punishment
for unlawful cohabitation any more than
a person who has never been convicted
and punished? The way for Mr.. Reyn-
olds, or any other man, to secure immu-
nifty from punishment for violation of any
law is by obeying the law and ceasing to
violate it. The law is no respecter of
persons, and before it all stand equal
whether for protection or punishment.
Should it be otherwise? Just so often as
a man violates the law just so
often should be be punished; no
more no less. Supposing that Mr..
Reynolds had been convicted and
punished for some other offense than
that of polygamy and the charge against
him now were for some other offense
than unlawful cohabitation, would anyone
deem him exempt from prosecution for
offenses committed against the law sub
sequently to his first conviction and pun
ishment? If people do not propose to
pay respect and obedience to the laws, is
it the duty of the officers to allow such
people to override the law or to enforce
the law? The people of Utah may take
lesson from the case of Mr.. REYNOLDS,
and it would be well for them
to heed it. There are a number
of men in prison now suffering
punishment for the same offense with
which it is understood Mr.. Reynolds is
charged, and from the conduct of some
of them when asked by the Court as to
their intention with regard to obeying
the law in future, it may be presumed
that it IS their intention to continue to
violate the law in the future as they have
in the past. If such is their intention
and such shall be their course when re-
lieved from Imprisonment, then they
may expect to be punished a second
time for a second ofense, and |
should follow each
ofense, though the offenses were
l hundred. If men were to be al
owed to have continual exemption from
by suffering but six months
Imprisonment they might well laugh at
such punishment and treat it as mere
oagatelle. A second immurement will
lot be so small matter as a first, and
his some may yet find. If any of those
Who are now in prison shall be convicted
second time of the same ofense, they
will not be so bold in manner and so free
n speech W len ordered to stand ND for a
econd sentence, as when first sentenced.
those who think that a second con-
iction and punishment for unlawful
ohabitation will make no change
n the great majority of those who
uffer it, and are liable to suffer for that
tfense, should remember that dropping
'ater wears the hardest stones.