The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-16

tIdi TIC JULIET SLUG udu uOtlncu I'LL
that they would make no objection TO
it. We want to see where the truth is
we want to know where and how this
marshal has been hob-nobbing with
undergrounders-w men in the Gus.
tody of this marshal and receiver. The
examiner held the questions pro-
pounded were proper, but even then his
attorneys instructed Dyer not to an
sWer. The examination dTindled down
and degenerated into a Wrsngle. In
the language of Mr.. Baskin, we did not
care to descend to the level of farcical
artists. Mr.. Baskin has no love for
such a role, neither have 1,
even though my friend, Judge
Powers, has some reputation as
a comedian. l have an interest in
this matter. 1t is law bordering on
that on which lawmakers should not
egisiate-that of taking money from
the Church. l held that the law was
constitutional, and Il DO not want any
stigma attaching to my name. l want
the truth. do not believe the investi-
cation held before Judge Sprague was
fair one. l ask that Mr.. Dyer be
made to answer these questions, and
that time be set for a further exam
nation, merely giving US time to get
our witnesses in. We want to examine
| witnesses on all the issues. Then let
the receiver come in with all the wit
| nesses that he may. Let truth prevail,
no matter on which side il may be.
JUDGE HENDkRsoN-You allege, Judge
Zane, that through the actions of the
receiver the government LOST $4,000.
Now. if this be true, would the receiver
| be entitled to anything whatever?
ZANE-This is one of the issues. We
would not care, however, to be confined
to one issue. We say that at best the
services are not worth more than S. ,000,
and if our charges are coIr c., he is not
entitled to anything.
JUDGE SANDFoRD-The question OF
compensation was referred to Referee
Sprague; the question Of the charges OF
corruption, dishonesty, etc., was re-
ferred to Referee Hardness. If you
will read our decision carefully you will
find that it says that and nothing more.
If your charges are proven that will, of
course, have its effect upon the COM
pensation to be allowed him. Charges
had been made against the officers OF
the court that we could net pass by.
ZANE-The two trustees did not in.
stitute the proceedings to remove Mar
shall Dyer.
JUDGE BoREMAN-But it would result
in that, Judge
ZANE-They were simply interested
in the question of the amount of the
compensation. We took the order OF
the court, and supposed we were going
on it.
PowERs-Didn't you write the order
ZANE-I didn't write it, nor have l
seen it. Judge Sprague's leaning was
the other way; and he had in this &C.
count, as L underst stand it, 500 that the
law didn't give to him. l do not say
that he asked for tit was given him.
THE CoURT-We don't want to hear
any imputations that he was leaning.
Powers appeared to be uneasy, as
| though he had eaten something that
did not agree with him. Ny friend,
Judge Zane, he said, has paid me the
compliment of being comedian. 1
accept the compliment with all hui
mility, but while so doing. must yield
the palm to him as q theologian.
He was called to order by the Court,
and the case take under adVisement.
THE HABEAs CORPUS CASE.
The habeas corpus case of Hester
Hendrickson, who was recently COM
mitted to the Penitentisry, because Of
her refusal to answer certain questions
put to her by the Ogden grand jury,
was the next one called. She
ton on the ground that she
was the lawful wife of John
Hendriokson, against whom the
inuuisitors were endeavoring to make
out case of polygamy. The order was
made by the court that she should an
swer the question, but that if the
Jurors should discover that she was the
lawful wife of the defendant, they need
not consider any of the testimony elic-
tied from her. This, Mr.. Rawlins con-
tended was wrong. The court only had
the power to pass upon the question as
to whether or not she was the legal wife.
The question as to whether or not she
could testify could not be left to the
Jury. A legal wife may be called, but
she cannot be compelled to testify
against her husband.
JUDGE SANDFoRD-Are they to be sat
isfied with her mere word?
RAWLINs-No, but the question of her
competency is passed upon by the
court only. If the court finds that she
is comretent witness it may
send her back with instructions to
answer such questions as tie Grand
Jury may put. The court below never
passed upon the question of compe-
tency, and before she had had the
privilege of this, she is imprisoned. A
jury is not supposed to pass upon the
materiality or the relevancy of testi
mony. The court must determine that,
and the court alone. We say that the
applicant here has not been heard by
a competent tribunal, and that she is
Illegally held.
Mr.. HILEs replied. It seemed to him
that the counsel for the petitioner had
gotten away from the real point. The
real question was whether the question
propounded by the grand jurors was q
proper one. The question was not one
of competency-it was one of propriety,
and I can not see upon what grounds
the petitioner seeks to be released. The
court and the jury had the right to pass
upon the question as to whether she
was entitled to the privilege or not.
Mr.. Rawlins did not dispute the fact
that the court had a right to pass upon
her competency. This had not been
done. Unless this court undertakes to
override the DECISION of the Supreme
Court of the United States, this woman
must be released, and take it, that it
should not do that, even to suit the
ideas of limited States marShals and