The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-17
DESERVED REBUKE.

DESERVED REbUh O.
It was deserved rebuke which the
Chief Justice administered the othel
day when he suggested that something
was wrong when indictments were
found on evidence which was insutfiel'
ent to warrant q conviction. The
wrong is one which should be remedled
There has been entirely too much OF
this business of preferring charges
against men for unlawful cohabitation
arrest,ng them, finding indictments and
taxing chances of the conviction com
ing along in the regular order. 1t has
so happened that good many OF the
accused have been guilty, and to avoid
the trouble and expense Of trial, and
to escape the annoyance of having
members of their families put on the
stand and badgered by lawyers, the &C
cused have confessed their ofense and
uncomplainingly submitted to the pun
ishment. Not one case in dozen ever
goes to a jury, the judgment being
passed on the accused's own confession
of guilt. 1t has sometimes seemed as il
the officers took advantage oil
this proneness to confess to accuse
and arrest where there was sus
picion, and trust to luck for
a plea of guilty CT a Eviction.
What has given rise to this impression
is the fact that where a man concludes
to stand trial the rule is that he is either
acquitted or is convicted by evidence
that would hardly be received as valid
and conclusive in another class of cases
or elsewhere than in Utah.
Within week five men were brought
into court as defendants who should
not have been taken there. Three OF
them were acquitted by the jury. after
hearing the evidence for the prosecu-
ton, the government attorney offerins
no objection The other two were dis
char ged on motion of the district at
torney, upon his confession that he had
no evidence. These five men had been
indicted by the grand jury, and upon
evidence with which the United States
attorney must have been familiar,
doubtless being the same as that with
which be went to trial. The govern
ment lawyer must have known
that he could not convict
With the evidence, and the grand
iury must also have known that the
testimony presented to it was insult
fcient to Justify a verdict OF guilty by a
trial Jury. Did the public prosecutor
and the inquisitors take it for granted
that because somebody had accused the
men the latter were guilty and would
as a matter of course, confess their
offense7 The outcome of the case con-
veys the impression that there was q
shooting at random in the expectation
of bringing down game.
One thing that is largely responsible
for the evil complained of is the system
of employing deputy narshals on per-
centags, letting them work the field on
shares" as it were. The deputies thus
hired are naturally more interested in
fees than they are in the legitimate en-
forcement of the law. They lay
charges and make arrests for the prob
able fees; an acquittal brings them
something, conviction fetehes more,
and when business is dull, as q
matter of course, they werk up
Cases as to which there is
doubt. The district attorney might
check or stop the evil by refusing
to entertain q doubtful case, and de-
clining to take before the grand jury
evidence which would be deemed in
sufficient by the petit jury. The grand
jury, also, could help matters by ignor-
ing charges where the evidence was
manifestIy inadequate; but it is tbs
custom or habit Of grand Juries to sab
NIT largely to the judgment or the sug-
gestion of the prosecutor,
1t is to be hoped that the officials
interested will remember the rebuke
which was administered from the
bench of the Third District the other
day, and will do less of the hit or miss
style of arresting and prosecuting.
That 30 many of the men charged with
unlawful cohabitation plead guilty
when accused, does not Justify the ar
rest of any man against whom there is
no evidence of guilt.
rNrvRrSTTNc ANN ANYTHING