Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-27
Is THAT ORDINANCE Waldo
An Argument by Bawlins That
shows Up the City's "Crusnde"
in Its True Light.

The case as to the validity OF the ordi-
nance under which the recent arrests for
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 the city,
and Sheeks & Rawlins for the petitioner,
Vandercook. In the hall outside Of the
rail large crowd of spectators WIS pres
emit 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 hdbeds corpus, the warrant upon which
Mr.. Vandercook 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
| mcnt OF lcwd and lascivious conduct and
prostitution within the limits of the city,
but is broad enough to cover the rea-
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 n person
who is not defined as 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
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
fornication. Any reasonable doubt as to
the powers of the corporation is resolved
against the corp4. ration. The Supreme
Court of the 'url States has SO decided
This decision b.ngs 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 OH
matters regarding general morality, OF
the restraining OF adultery and fornica-
ton. When the Legislature gives the
power to punish prostitution, the power
to restrain and punish adultery and for
nication is excluded unless otherwise pro
vided for. Webster and the law diction.
aries define prostitution. No ordinance
can enlarge or diminish its powers.
In 1876 an act defining and providing
punishment for series of crimes, in.
GLIDING prostitution, fornication and
adultery,
WAS REPEALED By THE LEGISLATURE.
1t was in operation when the present
charter and ordinance were under which
this acton is brought. The Legislature
not only repealed that act, but did not
substitute anything in its stead. 1t then
declared the policy OF the Territory re.
garding adultery and other crimes against
chastity, and that these crimes
could not be punished by the
municipalities in this Territory. The
laws must be uniform and enforced i'm.
partially. The history OF this Territory
repels the idea that the city has the
power to punish crimes Of this character
The specific rules OF the corporation must
not controvert the general laws of the
State
THE LAWS or THE STATE OPERATE IN THE
CORPORATION
AS well rs elsewhere, unless otherwise
provided a statute that appears or
the statute book is presumed to be valid
but there is no such reference rs to ordin
ances. There is nothing here, strain it as
you will, which grants the power TO pun,
ish this offense. Dstort language as
you may, there is nothing in this ordn.
ance that expresses the power to punish
violation OF chastity. The Supreme
Court holds the officer q criminal who
undertakes to serve a warrant by virtue
of such an ordinance. Speculation,
DLAcKMAL AND FRAUD HAVE DEVELOPED
In the course OF actions of this kind This
ordinance is so much waste paper. There
are causes why municipality should no
compel man to vindicate his character
The police court is summary 1t is be
fore Il grand jury and jury OF his peer;
that Il man should be called il
defense of his character. This ordi
nance makes it impossible for man t.
defend his good name. 1t is monstrous
absurd. 1t is not in the interest o
!! sound morality and good law that this
matter has been taken up. 1t is not t.
protect the young from the allurements
OF wicked women, but shows the policy
to be to drag unsuspecting citizens into
TRAPS TO DESTROY THEIR GOOD NAMES
At the close of Mr.. Rawlns' argument
which was not only profound, but partic
ularly eloquent Mt the close, the Cour