The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-01
ImpartiaIity.
A11LAKE Cry, February %, 1881

GALL LAKE OEF1, reoruary 20 1000.
To the Editor of THE HERALD:
In all criminal prosecutions the Con-
stitution gives to the accused the right
OF trial by an impartial jury. How Is
this Constitutional right interpreted in
Utah under Republican rule, in the
hands of Zane, Dickson, Varian, Nc
Kay, Gibson & Coz
A Mormon is accused of marrying
more than one wife, or of cohabiting
with the same after having married
them. His case is considered by the
United observation-disclosures prejudiced
enemy. awaiting his opportunity to
show his prejudice and enmity, and the
accused are bound over to await the
action of the Grand Jury. Grand and
petit juries are filled up sometimes by
open venire, contrary to law, and
always with every individual who is a
true and faithful Mormon, or who be-
lieves as Mormons do, carefully
squeezed out. In other words, the jures
are carefully composed of men who are
all anti-Mormons as nearly as can be,
and all Mormon-eaters rs nearly as can
be. Such juries are to all intents
and purposes, packed juries. i'm
panelled purposeiy to indict and
convict. Are they impartial,
juries within the meaning of the Consti
tuition? They are prejudiced enemies.
These Juries are not chosen from the
community at large, but from very
small minority class of the community,
expressly to consider the case of a mem
Der of the very large majority class,
against whom the minority are gene
rally very much prejudiced, and many
very bitterly prejudiced. Is such a
jury what the Constitution means by an
impartial jury? If SO, then words have
no meaning. Can a prejudiced jury
possibly be an impartial jury? Can a
jury of enemies possibly be an impair
tial jury? Yet by such juries Mormons
are indicted, tried, and convicted. 1t is
entirely safe to say that such trial is
an unconstitutional trial, and that, so
long as such methods are persisted in,
a Mormon so sccused in the Zane-Dick-
son court will never have a constitu-
tional trial, the opinions of all the
lawyers and decisions of all the courts
in the country to the contrary notwith-
When strong prejudices against the
accused exist in the minds OF the jury
men, it is not to be expected
that they will be impartial. But
when all the jurymen are strongly
and most of them bitterly prejudiced
against him, it is impossible for them to
be impartial, There would be more
of the jury being impartial
if one-half were prejudiced for and the
other against the accused, for then
the prejudices of the one-half might
counteract the prejudices of the other
half. Such an idea and such counter
action are more consistent with the in
tent of the jury provisions in the Poland
bill. But that intent is completely null
lifted under the present rule, which is
more in consonance with the expression
of an eastern newspaper concerning the
Mormons: I'VE do not mean to give
you fair play, we mean to put you
down
Now Mormon is indicted by juries
of prejudiced enemies, before judge
who is a prejudiced enemy, and with
prosecuting attorney and aids and all
the court officers prejudiced enemies,
all chock full of prejudice and enmity
towards the accused. What chance of
a fair and impartial trial under such
circumstances Is not such a trial q
mockery2 Is it not disgrace to the age
and the nationP Yet such is Republican
rule in Utah Thank heaven the Re-
publican party will be buried next week.
CITIZEN.