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

plll inc one VINO is honest IN MS beliet N st
be punished more savegely because of his be-
lief Old, settled, aud salutary rules of pro-
cCdurc are to be suspended in his case, while
the vil,mindcd transgressor can invoke these
old, settled and salutary rules TO secure to him
q fair trial.
That Is tho point am going to argue,
and ] thank the governor for asking the
question. We had statute in Missouri-where
We administer the law, suppose, rs correctly
as In any community IN tho world-which mado
1t criminal for anybody to aid or abet or sym.
pathize with the rebellion, and after the war,
when we were in n terrible state Of excitement,
great many arrests were made under that
section which condemns sympathy with the
rebellion and after protracted struggle be.
fore one of the best courts we ever had differ.
ing politically with the person charged, 1t held
that there was no power in the government TO
punish man who did not contribute directly
TO specific act forbidden to be done, and that
II was not competent to enter the dominion OF
private feeling or opinion or sympathy to pun
ish. That the constitution forbidH
The idea that because u certain man belongs
to a certain church, ana n certain other man
who steals horses also belongs to tn, church,
you can punish the church, Is n cruel PROPOSE
ton to make, and has not In II the slightest
legal support. Let me read an authority orr two
upon that point inasmuch rs II Is now up. |
Will read from 81 Mo, i05, Howard VS. Stewart:
ut will thus be perceived that mere knowl-
edge and mere intent stand upon one and tho
same footing, and an examination of the cd.
Indicated cases both In England and In this
country shows that the great current of author.
ity flows in the above indicated direction, and
that so long as design to commit INSIDE
meanOr remains lin ileri) unclothed with any
OF the attributes of legal tangiblllty, II will
constitute no basis Of defense to an action"
Another decision:
abetting as used in our statute or in the COM
mon law definition of an accOmplice, should
be deemed necessary, II is proper that the eN-
planntoTy terms used should convey n correct
Idea of the meaning Of the oitense. The court
probably did not mean to hold that the mere
mental approval by bystandcr of a murd r
committed In his presence would make such
bystander n principal in the murder, yet tho
use of the distinctive (or) between the various
terms employed to describe the crime OF an nc
comp.icp necessarily leads to this interpreta-
ton of the instruction. The words or approx.
ing OF have no placa in legal pbraseolOgy to
explain the meaning Of the words to aid and
al c'. The fact itself Is incapable Of proof
Mental operation, not accompanied with amy
acton or language Is beyond the reach OF testt
mony.'
this case, then there Is NO need ofths bill, be-
cause under section 5l3D rs you gentlemen all
against Inc United States Is now puui,hedJ,
where two or more cLnspire to commit any
of'ense against the United states they may DO
punished, 1.-two or moro persons couspire to
commit biggmy or pplygamy, ifthc law ofcOn.
spiracy apply to such transaction, which
claim does not and cannot, tlon the law Is
now ample, and two persons WHO conspire 70
do an act may be punished for that act, If the
act itself he condemned But the degree of
participation in the act itself must be shown
in order to convict. Here isa case where
party stood by while n murder was being com.
mittCd. lie stood by and approved the crime
of Il c defendant, bit lid M act TO contribute
to the murder, and therefore tho court say
that II Is incompetent to punish him; that 1t Is
impOs sible under our law TO punish him for
approval of q murder The Supreme Court In
this very class Of cases drew the line between
the opinions which those men entertain and
the extent to which punishment may go for
an net done. In those cases II Is held that
they could lie punished only for overt acts
done.
VIII any lawyer say that If recommend u
man to commit blgamy that could be jointly
indicted with him for committing bigamy?
Can / participate with another man In big
amy? II Is not in the nature of n joint olfense.
There is no conspiracy which would lie, nor
would any court construe that If l recon.
mCnded person TO commit biglny, and he
did commit bigamy, that could be held for
his bgamy. Can two men be indicted Jointly
for one committing perjury? Not at all. The
statutes punish subornatiOn Of perjury, but
do not punish two persons for the crime OF one.
Why? Simply because the two cannot BIO
jointly implicated in the moral perfidy OF the
false swearing by one. Take case of bgamy
where n man marres q woman unlawiully.
Can any other man participate In that partic.
ular cnse of bigamy with him2 Why, the law
is well established that the advice of one man
TO another TO commit crime amounts TO moth.
ing unless the party advising actually aids
him In II, and the crime must be such that he
can aid him. Suppose advised man to steal
advise has in tho oilensc. was not present
to aid him in stealing the horse. simply ad-
vised him 20 steal the horse. undertake to
say that while all this condemnation of polyg-
amy and bigamy has been attempted to DO
extended to this church, there is no legal prin-
cipie that would carry the liability of polygamy
and bigamy or unlawful cohabitation beyond
the parties who participate IN II.
TIE Chairman. Can man be held accessory
10 the cr'me of suicide OF another?
Mr. Chandler Yes, II a statute so declares,
Tut would you not hold that. IN order TO be an
accessory. lie would have TO do some act TO aid
suicide2 That the pro- oation lam discussing
the proposition that II man must do some act
which tribunals may see that the legal effect Of
itisto contribute to the crime denounced. As
long ~ you leave your contribution in mere
susp cion or conjecture 1t IS not contribution in
law, but one must have so contributed to the
act, and must have been so implicated In the
act, that what he, did can be proved to, con-
| tribute 10 1t. Otherwise You woulu condemn
| men for their approval, you would condemn
| men for their sympathy, you would condemn
them FOR ileir Intent, and under Our system OF
| criminal Inv defy any lawyer to present any
| wCil.cOnsdCrcd case from any court that holds
| that persons are liable for sympathy with one
WEo has committed forbidden act II YOU
extend punishment to sympathy, what be.
| comes of your principle of strict construction?
| Gun you convict man except foran act which
| he has colnlnlttcl2 Act and intent" the ST.
prone Court OF the United has repeatedly said,
| constitutes crime and not intent. but the for.
| hidden act and intent together are necessary.
But where is the authority for saying that the
| VI, V,
| unlawful cohabitatiou? Has such proof been
| filed before this committee?
| The Chairman. Before you pass from the
| point that you are now discussing, will ask
| you does this new act Senate bill No. 10, pro-
| pose any thing in ref renee to the competency
| OF Jurors who are implicated in the same Of
| fCnse?
Mr.; Chandler. No, sir; but the law as it
| stands now does.
The Chairman And you arc arguing on the
validity OF the law as 1t now Is with view to
nmnn1mnnf /
MIR. Chandler. No, SIR. am arguing against
| this bill TO show that there Is not provision
| IN y that does not violate settled and accepted
| doctrines ofour law Thela as 1t now stands
| Furnishes bigamy, ,polygamy. and unlawful
| cohabitation, and that Is all that can be done.
! am not complaining If the committee please,
| OF the construction which has been given to
| the law as 1t now stands by those decisions
| here referred to; there Is no proposition
| before this committee TO repeal the law.
| There Is no proposition here to modify the law,
and the only objection We raise Ia against the
bill proposed; against legislation for the future.
| ANY one who will read the memorial of the
ladies OF Utah OF adiudications there, and not
| denied the questions ruled upon by the court
being set ont in full, will SEQ that If any law can
be made efficient in reaching the result sought
I for, the law as 1t now stands does that. II
| goes TO the limit of cruelty.
The Chairman. From whom is that memo.
riGl2
| highly respectable class OF ladies who live in
| Utah-and they are Mormons. That Is their
| only ofiense. They come here and complain
| of their own grievances not of those of others,
| as the Gentles do, who have no grievance of
| their own to bring with them but these ladies
| come here setting up their wrongs, and have
not Heard their statement OF the, case denied.
| lfyou were called upon TO take their evidence
| you would accept II with rs much faith and
| confidence as you would the evidence of any.
| body.
| Suppose this were the Young Mems Christian
| Association complaining that you were pro-
posing TO pass low to make their wives swear
| against them They would be incensed at the
| idea Of turning wives Of the Young Mems
| Christian Association against them; but II Is
| entirely different with MOrmonS, md It Is
| highly proper to invade what sapctity there Is
| left in the marriage relation IN Utah where II
| would not be under other circumstances II
| you are prosecuting this legislation 20 preserve
that SalCity,Will Won DTCSprye Il by the dlsinte.