The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-12-11
TEE BASSETT CASE.
1t is Argued Before the United
States Supreme Court.
is THE TESTIMONY OF A WIFE
Admissible Against Her Husband ?-Mr Rich
ards Argument Against the Doctrine
The Attorney Generals Reply.

telegram TO HE HERALD. In Bishop oaS-
sett's case, which came up in the United
States supreme court to-day, Mr.. Frank
lin S. Richards made the opening argu-
ment. The principal point in the case was
the incompetency. Bassett's wife testified
against her husband. Mr.. Richards quoted
numerous authorities sustaining this point,
particularly the decision Of this court,
declaring that the rule excluding the wife
from being witness was founded in the
deepest and soundest principles
OF our nature, constituting tie
basis of civil society and essential to the
confidence that should subsist in the
nearest and dearest relation of life. He
read the Utah statutes and cited cases from
California and other states giving similar
laws of the construction claimed. Mr.. Rich
ards also showed that one of the jurors was
disqualified by the Edmunds act, because
he had been polygamist. He cited auth
critics to show that the court erred in in
STRUGGLING the jury that they were mot
| bound to believe the testimony of any wit
ness, or any number OF witnesses" He in
sisted that the law would not sustain
conviction on the alleged confession Of his
client, without corroborative Evidence, and
read host of cases sustaining his position.
His argument was exhaustive and cOnvinc
ing, lasting nearly an hour and a half.
Attorney General Miller replied to Mr..
Richards He claimed that the bill of ex-
ceptions was not properly in the record
but the court did not seem to agree with
him on that point He said the law did
not require confederation of a confession
but insisted that there were circumstances
in the record that showed confederation.
He claimed that other parts of the charge
caused the defeat complained of by the ap-
pellant and said the jurors pardon made
him competent, he insisted that the wife
was d competent witness and held decisions
from Iowa and Nebraska to that effect, but
could not produce any authority to sus-
tain the position that she might testify to
a confidential communication. In answer
to questions from the bench he admitted
that such would be a dangerous rule.
In the close of his argument he referred
to Bassett's belief in polygamy, and said il
he'd been preached that polygamy was
right and salvation depended upon it. He
spoke hree-quarters OF an hour.
Mr. Richards in his closing argument
, showed that the bill of exceptions was al
) right. He claimed that some of the author
tiles cited by the attorney general were no
in point, and showed why. He claimed thai
the jurors pardon only relieved him OF
: the consequences Of breaking the
law against polygamy and restored
!; his civil rights, but did NJ
effect his political privilege to be juror
/ He pointed out the fact that only two states
had held that d wife could testify, while
the great majority had held the other way
, and with the exception of this case NJ
court had ever held in this country that {
wife could divulge confidential communi-
cation made to ner by the husband. Ger
! tainly this court would not be the first tt
? establish such a rule and, in it's own Ian
guage, destroy the last solace of human
l existence"
IL conclusion, Mr.. Richards referred t
the remarks of the attorney general and il
i an impressive manner assured the cour
that polygamy was not taught now ant
: had not been preached for long
time. He referred to the action o
t the Mormon church in general confer
/ ence assembled, whereby it had recently
: declared, in the most solemn and and EN-
I phatic manner, against contracting any
| marriage forbidden by the law of the land
: In sincerity and good faith the church ant
It people had yielded submission to the Law
> and they were now entitled to fair an,
y impartial construction of it.
i The attorney general said he did not asl
for a strained construction and Mr.. Rich
v ards replied that the judgement Of tn
s lower court must then be reversed. Tn
judges listened attentively and aske
n many questions. Both sides of the cas-
d were ably presented, but evidently the az
e pellant has the best of the light.