Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-10-19
STATUTORY CRIMES.

The distinctions which men make are
wonderful In no place is this wonder
seen more often than in Utah. In the
case of the United States vs.. Aurelius
Miner, which came up in the Third Dis
trict Court on Saturday, Mr.. Miner
made some OF these distinctions. He
expounded the Constitution in the same
manner with which all are so familiar in
Utah. The rule for determining what is
constitutional and what is unconstitutional
in Utah is to choose what one likes and
to reject what one dsikes in the Consti-
tuition, that which is liked being con-
stitutional and that which is disliked
being unconstitutional. But to return to
Mr.. Miners distinctions. He had been
expounding the Constitution, when the
Court interposed and asked him:
as it not wrong for one man to kill
another?
Mr.. Miner-Yes, your Honor.
Court-ls not that IMMORAL?
Miner-Yes, but not more so because
the law pronounces the act criminal.
Corrt-That is enacting the moral law
into the municipal law, is it not?
Miner-Yes, nothing else; as one great
founder and commentator OF the law
says
Court-The criminal law is nothing
than that, is it?
Miner-Yes, sir; that which is NAHUM
in Sc and that which is NAHUM pro-
hibitun."
What crimes are nahum IN SC? Merely
those crimes which are mentioned in the
Decalogue. What crimes are nahum pro-
hibitum? Grimes which are not mentioned
in the Decalogue, but are prohibited by the
law OF particular country. The crimes
OF the Decaloguc are no more, no less
than the malum prohibitum OF the Mosaic
law. These crimes become NAHUM in Sc
from the reverence which the Christian
world gives to the laws of Moses as being
the laws OF God and based upon the princi-
pies of eternal justice. The crime of one
age may not be the crime of another, and
uice versa. Whether crimes are things
OF essence or OF convention it is impossi
BILE to determine, but so far as the
municipal law of any country is con.
cerned, they are things OF convention
1t is very doubtful whether Pope was fai
wrong when he said that "whatever is is
right" and that saying was the doctrine
of Horne Tooke rs elaborated in the
Diversions OF Purley."
Mr.. Miners distinction between crimes
in themselves and things declared crimes
rests upon a belief, and nothing more. L
the crimes OF the Decalogue are the only
crimes, then these crimes should be pun
ished in accordance with the provisions
OF the Mosaic law, for the measure o
their punishment comes from the same
source that the declaration of the crime
does. Why a malum prohibitum OF {
Hebrew lawgiver should be any more
crime per Sc than II nahum prohibitum o.
the United States is difficult to under
stand. Crimes are but the infraction O
the rules OF society, be that society larg'
OF sllull, ClNlllZeu OF uucl|lllZeu
Christian or pagan, and are pun
ished in accordance with tn
opinion OF society as to the harm and in
jury done to it through violation of tn
rules (the laws) established for its gov
ernment. In the United States thes
rules must conform to the Fundamental
rule for the guidance OF the whole coun
try, which rule in the Constitution. Nh
Miner assumed to say whether rul
made in pursuance of the power grantee
in the Constitution was in harmony witt
that instrument or not, and because tn
wrong which is forbidden by this rule {
Congress is not forbidden in the laws c
Moses, he declared it was unconstitutior
al. To determine whether or not tn
nahum prohibition OF Moses is nahum i
Sc Mr. Miner goes to the fOrO conscientig
very good place, but one not competen
to determine the constitutionality or vi
constitutianality of law OF Congress
The statutory crimes OF the America
Congress are rs much crimes as the prc
hibited acts of the Decalogue And the
the laws OF Moses are ultra uires.
PRISON REFORM.