The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-09-10

0y the QefenQanG, was done WlJnln the
county of ONEIDA in this territory. So of
the time of such acts; that time was on
Saturday, the 9th day of October, 1888;
nor is it disputed that the oath was taken
by the defendant in the form as stated in
the Indictment; and before the officer
named in the indictment. AS to the au
ity of the officer administering the
oath to administer the same, that is ques-
ton of law alone, and the court charges
you that as a question of law the registrar
had such authority. AS to whether the de-
fent ant up to the 9th day of October
l $50, was member of the Mormon
church, there is no question in the evil
dence nor in the argument. AS to whether
he was member, say, of the organlza-
| ton known as the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints there is no question
Does then that organization fall within the
provision of the law making membership
in it a disqualification of a voter! That
also is question of law; and although that
point is controverted in the argument of
the counsel for the defendant, still this
court regards that question as settled in
this territory, and charges you as matter
OF law. that such organization falls within
the inhibition of the statute, as an organi-
cation in which membership deprives the
member of the right TO vote. The court
does charge you, | say, that such member
ship does disqualify person from voting
But admitting the membership of the de-
PENDANT in such organization, up to the
27th day OF October, 1888, was that
membership terminated on that day,
before the defendant took the oath
complained! | say, admitting the mem
bership of the defendant up to that date,
was that membership terminated by
the defendant before he took the oath,
which is the subject matter of this indict-
ment? That is question for you to deter
mine; and in this it becomes your duty to
lay bare the acts, intentions and motives of
the defendant. To this question the evil
dence in the case is mainly directed. The
court charges you that it is the right of any
member of that organization to withdraw
at pleasure, but it also charges you that
such withdrawal, in order to be effectual,
and to restore to the member the right un-
der the election law to vote, must be abso-
Lutte, in good faith and with intent to termi-
nate absolutely such membership. On
that point the defendant requests the
court to charge you as follows:
''If the jury find from the evidence that the
defendant, before taking the oath, had
Withdrawn as member of such Mormon
church, by giving notice thereof in writing
to the bishop or other proper officer of such
church, and causing his name to be striker
from its roll Of members, or in any other
way which the defendant believed, or I'M
uCISLOou " DC oulllClcuO W SShtI Ills ESld-
lions as a member of the said church, and
took the said OATH believing and under
standing at the time, that he was not
member thereof, then you should find the
defendant not guilty. | SO charge you
again. The defendant requests the court to
charge you, that "before the jury can con-
vict the defendant they must find from the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that
defendant took an oath that he would de-
clare plrtifU f1Jl1V and hoUiOTr fol-ap c11ob
an oath willfully and contrary to such oath
stated as true matter that which he knew
was false, namely, that he was not at the
time of so stating member of any order,
organization or association which teaches,
advices, counSels or encourages its men,
bers, deVOtees or other persons, TO commit
the crimes of bigamy or polygamy, or any
other crime defined by law, as duty arts
ing from membership in such order, organ
ization or association, or which practices
bigamy or polygamy or plural or celestial
marriage as dOctrinal rite of such aSso-
citation" In connection with other instruc-
tions in this charge, l do so charge you.
The court also charges you that it is the
right OF any member to withdraw from that
organization at pleasure, but it also charges
you that such withdraw, in order 10 be
effectual and restore to the member, under
the election law of this territory, the right
to vote, such withdrawal must absolute, in
good faith, and with intent to terminate,
absolutely, such membership. A mere
attempt to get around the law by merely
formally pretending withdrawal, is not
sufficient. An act of withdrawal must be
absolute, and in good faith; 1t must be
with intent on the part of the member
to leave the church organization. 1t must
not merely be an act done either on his own
motion or by collision with the church |
authorities or organization, or at their re
quest, to evade the law, but it must be done
by the member, either with or without
the concurrence of the officials and whether
according to their counsel, request or com
mand or otherwise, but it must be done by
him in good faith, and with intent to leave |
such organization. There is no such thing
as leaving the organization for one purpose,
and staying with it for all the other pur-
poses. The laws of the land cannot be so
trifled with.
am further requested by the defendant |
to charge you on that point, and in connec- !
ton with it as follows: at will be the duty
of the jury to acquit the defendant unless
you find that the defendant at the time he
took the oath alleged, was a member, and
knew himself to be member of the or
ganization known as the Mormon church"
The court so charges you, also in connec-
ton with what is elsewhere said on the sub
ject of knowledge of the law. 1t may not
be necessary here for the court, or for you,
to inquire specially into the object and pur-
pose of the law forbidding the persons in
Dictated TO vote. II is sufficient that such
is the law which you and ! are sworn to
administer; but as intelligent men, and as
Jurors, you know what that law is. and
what is your duty under it. You know
that the law in question is no
sham, or pretencc: and if it is to be met, it
must be met with acts which are also real
and substantial. 1t is for you to say from
the evidence whether the act of the defend
ant in giving to the bishop his withdrawal,
or any other and all acts of his in that mat
ter, whether by himself alone or by the
agency of the bishop, or by the agency of
anybody else, as shown by the evidence,
was real and absolute disconnection of
himself from such organization, or whether
it was mere pretence and subterfuge to
get around the law in the matter of being
allowed to vote. If the former, then you
will find the defendant not guilty If You
should find from the evidence that the lat
ter was the only purpose of his act, that his
act was only sham, then you will con-
slider him when he took the oath as still
member Of that o! ganization.
l also charge you that it is a rule
of law that person is conclu-
sively presumed to know the law;
and that one may not excuse him !
self for violation of the law, by pleading
his ignorance of the law. A person NAV |
be ignorant of facts, and by reason of such |
ignorance may be excused; but he may not |
be excused by reason of ignorance, or al |
legged ignorance of the law. ] repeat |
that the law he is cOnclusively presumed to |
know; with reference to facts he may be |
mistaken; and if mistaken honestly, that |
mistake he may have the benefit of; and in |
your consideration of this case you will |
take care to run the line of distinction be |
tween those things which are facts in the |
case and those things which are purely Of |
law.
The evidence in this case, gentlemen of |
the jury, on that point, invites the court to |