Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-04-05
THE IDAHO CONSPIRACY CASES
DISMISSED.

Oh THURSDAY last, the 3rd inst,
the noted election conspiracy cases
came up for trial at Malad, Idaho.
Fifty-two men were included in the
same Indictment, which charged
them with conspiring to vote unlaw-
fully. The defendants had rendered
their designations as members OF the
Mormon Church, under the belief
that, by so resigning, they could
lawfully take the registration oath
and vote.
To the credit of the prosecuting
officer, D. W. Standrod, Esq, it
may be stated that he manifested
no lll-wul towards the defendants.
nor any desire 70 secure the inHic-
ton Of a severe penalty upon them.
He expressed his willingness TO re-
commend the court to inflict only
a light fine upon each Of them,
which, it was tacitly understood,
should be SIS, on condition that the
defendants should plead guilty, ns
charged in the indictment. The
latter appreciated the leniency of
the proposal, and so far as the pecu-
mary feature Of it was concerned,
would gladly have acceded to it. But
in being arraigned, they had entered
a plea Of not guilty, and they were
unwilling to change it to one Of
guilty. While the decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
affirmed the proposition that these
men had committed a technical
offense, they felt that they had acted
conscientiOusly, and were unwilling
to make a record which might be
construed as a confession that they
had done otherwise.
The prosecution then proposed
that if three of the defendants
would come into court and change
their pleas, fines would be assessed
upon those three heavy enough 70
cover all the rest at SIS each, and
thehdictment as against all the
other defendants would be dismissed.
As a matter resting among them
selves, each Of them would pay his
share. But this was objected TO rs
having practically the same moral
effect that compliance with the
former proposition would have hal.
While it is somewhat unusual for
= prosecuting officer to enter into
such negotiations as these with
parties under indictment, nothing
Illegal was suggested in the present
instance. The fac: may as well be
understood that the court and prose-
cution were in serious dilerlma.
On the one hand heavy expenses
had been incurred by the county,
aud the prosecuting officer felt it
his duty to secure, at least in part,
reimbursement therefor. On the
other hand he had a right to take
Official notice of the fact that The
defendants were good citizens ia
the best sense of the, term, whose
crime sonly an error of Judgment
and not an act involving moral tur-
pitude. The court had a right to take
Judicial notice Of the same fact an
in reality did c.These circumstance
explain in part the reasons for ne
gotiations which faultfinders might
perhaps criticise rs irregular, but
which were entirely within the
law. The more serious textures ofthe
dilemma in which the court aud
prosecuting attorney found them
selves viii be explained further on.
AS the defendants objected to
having any Of their number plead |
guilty, it was determined to go TO
trial with the case Of one of them. |
Twenty-four jurors were in attend
ance. An attempt was made 20
select from this number a trial
jury, but challenges for cause
were offered and sustained in rapid |
and soon thirteen Of the |
twenty-four were excused. The |
work of impaneling a jury had TO |
be suspended, and a venfre for
twenty-four jurors was placed in the
hands Of the sheriff and made re-
tunnable two days later. 1t was OBJ
improbable that qualified
jurors could be found without going
to remote portions of the county, as
the cases were 50 notorious; hence
the delay. - |
There were hfty-two defendants.
They could not all be tried together,
and juror who had sat on the case
Of one would thereby be disqualified |
to sit on that Of another. Again, 50
large a proportion Of the inhabitants
Of that section had fixed opinions
respecting the guilt Of the accused
that it was hard to get any jurors at
all. 1t thus became fully apparent
that is would be a physical |
impossibility to procure jurors !
enough, within The Jurisdiction Of
he court to try more than a
portion, and probably small por-
ton, Of the defendants, and of course