National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-15


have no interest In common with those people,
| VINO know roihing of the wants and needs Of
| that community but whose sole business 1t Is
| to gain nototlety by infaming the country
against them II this committee Is going to
recommend n bill that bill ought to stand upon
| q solid legal and impartial basis. II ought not
| contempt.
ifihis be snlutary rule make It general in
| tho United States and ifit is not n sautary
| rule of evidence why introduce 1t in Utah
| against the Mornons only But II is con-
tended here that this is an aggravating aud
| poluting system that in dealing with 1t the
standard of justicc shall be changed, the rules
| of procedure changed so that we may the moro
| completely overthrow this evil than we would
| be able TODD II we did not make the change.
fact that IN the opinion Of Congress and this
| committee II is OF greater benefit to the peo-
| pie of the United States to convict man of
| the methods OF procedure which have been
| sanctitled during our entire history.
| we have maxim OF law which furnishes
| possibly better than any other the criterion
| which should govern in the making of laws MS
| wtll Ms in the administration of laws, and
that is that II Is better that ninety-nlnc guilty
men escape than that one innocent man be
convicted. How many times has that been
| solemnly declared by the highest judicial tri-
bunals OF this country What does that maxim
| disclose? What does It signify 1t signifies
that ninety.nlne parts OF the administration
| OF law consists in conservatism, In prudence,
| in humanity; while one part consists OF re-
|
| be ninety.nlne parts of caution, ninety nine
| parts OF stability in your jurisprudence, where
there exists one part of excitement and up.
| roar. say that Il Is of much greater conse-
| quence to this country TO preserve Intact the
| great principles which have distinguished our
| jurisprudence, made 1t blessing TO the Coun.
Try. and pride to the people; that It is of in.
hnltely greater consequence to preserve the
law In lis purity than 1t is to reach a convic.
| ton by relaxing therules OF safety.
This life Is not dedicated to the conviction
| nnf national
| ticn to degrade man md TO increase the class
| OF criminals IT. the United states, and now, In.
asinllch as We have arrived ut our high state OF
| civilization by the preservation of the law as
II now l., ara III der its active, cloyAting force
We have grown to gicnt people are we jus
| TILED IN throwing away the Salu'nry principles
| which have done us so much service in the
| not.
The Lexl section provides that any pr,sacu-
| hahItGtIon under any Stdtut o.! the United
| States, whether before n United States COM
missioner, justice, judge, n grand jury, or any
| court, IN attachment for any witness may be
| issued by the court Judge, or commissioner,
| without pfevion subpoena, compelling the
| immediate attention Of such witness when II
| SHAH appear to The commissioner, Justice,
| Judge, or court, ms the case may be- that there
is reasonable grounds to believe that such Wit
| ness will not obey n subpoena
Amy man who has administered lay knows
| that an instruction to a jury which authorized
| the jury TO find verdict according to their be-
lief would be held erroneous. Tdey NUT be.
| lieve from the evidence. You do not submit
| controversies i'll any shape tOa mere belief.
| You determine aud adludicac the cOntrorcr.
sizes that come before courts on cvidSnce, and
| any statute that diSpcnSoS with evidence in
| ord to come to any conclusion Is vicious for
| that reason. The constitution fOrbids the arrest
Of person except on probable cause. Proba-
| BILE cause has been defined so often by our
courts that II il understood to be composed of
| evidence There must be an affidavit of the
| party having some knowledge of the subject,
and then there can only be an arrest preliniu.
airy TO n hearing. The party arrested on proba.
| bic cause is entitled to hearing before com.
mitment,. This statute does tolerate imprison.
ment without q hearing II contemplntcs that
II the Judge thinks he has good ground for be-
| lief-not that there is probable cause not that
he will hear evidence on the part of the party
| against whom this thing is aimed, who may
be present and be heard and show that there Is
nothing in the suspicion, but the party may be
put in Jail and kept there ten days with
out hearing. 1t may be the husband or
administered this law who felt the zeal requi-
site for man who Is appointed to go to the
territory OF Utah and morally purify i, and he
finds prosecution about to be instituted
against the husband. He believes, as a
matter of course, that the wife will not APP
pear. In that case he is authorized by this
| law, II It be valid, to issue an attachment for
the woman and keep her in jail for
ten days, without a hearing, and at
the end Of that time she may be dis.
person shall be held In custody undor any at.
tachment issued, as provided by this section,
for longer time than ten days; and the per.
| discharge from custody by executing q rccog.
nizance," &c. According to that she may Sc
cure her release within the ten days by giving
discharged. But here is the power given an
officer OF the law to put n person in jail ten
days without any evidence nj all, without q
| bearing, and upon nothing except the belief of
| the Judge that the party will no! obey the sub
| iuha. is that justice? Does that prevail in
any civilized community in this world? Is
It constitutional? Now, In the case. with
| which you are all familiar, OF Bradley VS..
Fisher, reported in 10 wallace, the subject of
contemptS before courts Is gone over very fully
| by the supreme Court, and they hold that
though court might punish person for con-
tempt committed in the presence of the court
without hearing tic evidence, yet 1t is
| wise before Furnishing a person for contempt
| in the presence of the court even, to give him
hearing; but in all cases Of contempt ont OF
| the picst nee OF the court there Is no power 70
imprisOn without Il hearing.
| This bill docs not contemplate case OF con-
tempt, because there can he no contempt OF
the process Of the court until issued; there can
be no failure to observe n process until the
process has nm existence and has been s1rved.
This statute undertakes TO authorize q
Judge or IN officer notwithstanding justice in
Utah to take posse SsiUn Of the witness aud in.
carcerate him without any process of law
| WHATEVER, \ per on goes before him and says,
| here; this party will probably leave the terri
tory unless YOU issue this att Ichm mt; and that
belief which is spoken Of ThN statute does
not fix any criterion which shall govern him
in this matter and therefore he Is to judge
what II means and yon are asked 10 give him
| power to take witnesses in prosecution and
coniine them without hearing upon the
grounds of belief.
1t Is said that blgamy, polygamy, and I'm.
lawful cohabitGtlon are Offensive to our civil
izatlon, and because they are offensive to our
civilization this extraordinary and unusual
remedy ought to he permitted. Is not al act
which takes mans liberty without due process
Of law offensive to our civilization? Is our civil
i2ation offended in only one Particular Isitt the
crime of bigamy or polygamy alone at which
our civilization can be offended? II you tram
pie upon our methods of justice and abolish
the principles of personal security. which we
have built up through centuries, and which we
have inherited from our ancestors, 1t seems to
me that such an attack upon our civilization
would be infinitely more OF nm oilense than the
mere crime ofbigarny Is bigamy more offensive
than horse stealing? Is bigamy more offensive
than murder; Is II more offensive than treason2
Yet there is no proposition to change the rule
or method OF procedure in any other oilense
than this single one. In the esteem of the law
bgamy and poygamy are not ranked as the
most deprayed oitenses OF the code, The
ton, is the grayer olCnsc, and yet you do not
i propose TO suspend the ordinary methods OF
procedure In regard 10 murder.
| MI Stewart. Is not there this difference, Mr..
Chandler. In all the crimes which you have
mentioned, that they are universally recog.
nlzed as crimes by all society OF men? Now,
/ oNDI'oo yOH RONcIHlllcul
where horse stealing or any of those crimes
which you speak Of In an offensive sense were
recognized as an institution, would you not
say that in such case as that some Unusual
remedy might be applied? There is that diff.
ference between this crime Of polygamy us 1t
| exists in this territory aud the ordinary crimes
| with which humane governments deal, There
Is an organized government which, as II Is
said, uphOlds ana recognizes this thing rs q
| part of their social system, and they uphold
| aud sustain II, and say they are going to stick
10 IT, Now, the direct question Is, when YOU
| como to deal with II, whether you are Justified
in using extraordinary measures. That Is the
| point you should arg;e.
Mr. Chandler. That question assumes tho
| existence Of an organization to commit crime
| lfthe organization be such rs 10 make the
| members thereof C0nspirAtOrS then they may
| be punished hs snch rnder the Inv rs Il NOW