Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-07-01
WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE?

No doubt Judge Powers is The most
astonished man in Utah, and likely the
most amused one, too, at the amount of
tflH abrFt fis dissenting opinion in the
M1lsser case. IF he had been Legisla.
tive Commission entire his action could
not have created more comment than it
has. WE aehadste sag conk /
cerning it On Monday last, but we never
presumed to construe the law and say
what it should be or what it should not
be. In, his dissenting opinion, Judge
Pe~srsFp9kss as fqlloys;s ; -
"Ihe instruction requested by the defend
ants counsel should have been given, and
in not giving it the Court virtually allowed
the jury TO believe that there is no presump-
ton of law that at the passage of the Ed
mu4ds ACT those who had lived in polygamy
before ceased to do So IN my opinion such
is the presumption of law"
whethersSleB i 9E y not stAes RB we
do not presume to say, but certain it is
that such is not the law in the opinion of
the Tribune, and it makes this comment
upon it:
'lThe position of Judge Powers, that the
passage of the Edmunds act raised pre-
sumption that the Mormons who had been
practicing polygamy thereupoh abandoned
such practice, Is most singular one. 1t is
not generally known that the passage of
eriPInRx x8statpte s1s1sesI aahH lEesuhptiOh
whatever as to whether 1t will be obeyed or
not"
True, there is one great drawback to
the position of Judge Powers and that is
he is Democrat. But we have never
heard that Judge Boreman was Dem
ocrat, and have never thought him to be
inclined. to. embrace Mormonism, and
yet His Honor entertains much the same.
opinion regarding the presumptions of
the law as 10 the cessation of the prac-
Nce dfPolSsamy. Ia the caseof the:
Bnited States against William Fothert--S
ingham, indicted for unlawful cohabita-
ton, in giving his charge to the jury, His
Honor oRthis sint said :
"The law presufnes innocence, and, there
fore, that all persons who were cohabiting
when the Edmunds Act took effect, contrary
to the provisions of that act, then ceased to
10 @- z@4 R~E .=r
3 1t is rule of law that all prescriptions
may be rebutted, but until rebutted they
are to STAND in favor Of the .Aerson by,
whom they are invoked. But the Tribune
further says:
1.-The only true ground is that given by
Judge Zane, in refusing to give such mis-
leading instruction-that the law presumes
the prisoner at the bar to be innocent until
he is proved guilty; further than chat tif6fe
is not and cannot be any presumption"
This is much after the manner of the
NeWs,. decisionE; is fully as. weighty, and
no mbre 81 KeswShEto ASS ons suss-
ton, not presuming to say what is or
what is not the law. This is the ques-
ton: Ii the law presumes a man inno-
cent, must n NOT logically presume 'tfIat
he has ceased 80 do thosc things that
would make him guilty? There was this
merit about Judge Powers opinion that
he gave it because he believed e. 1t was
as mlchshb duty 10 tdissenk if he could
not concur in the decision of the majority
of the Court, as it would have been for
him TO say he concurred had his opinion
been their opinion. Possibly His Honor
will wonder how so small thing could
create SO great a commotion; and his
w4Ref VIII bepustifeds III y gE &
WUkt - -. ~ AIs