The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-12-08

that idea, and if you will listen to me
VIII analyZe it and give you an IN
derstsnding of it.
Judge Powers-You have my eternal
gratitude, I am sure.
Judge Judd, continuing, said the Pc
uuon implied that in some mysterious
way the grand jury had to do some
thing other than bring the prisoner"
before the court That was a. PROPOSE
ton which he denied. The only thing
necessary FOR them TO do was to bring
him here; then their Office and power
ceased, so far as the witness was con-
cerned. The contempt was committed
IN this case when the witness stood
race to face with the court, and the
Petitioner in his petition repeats his
contempt and says he refused to an
Swer and stin refuses, for the reason
that he does not think it question
which he ought to answer. He does not
consider it is conducive to public JUS
tice that this case should be invest-
gated. He considers he is the Judge OF
what cases the grand jury shall in
vestigate and what not. One of the
other parties committed comes into
court in spirit of defiance and says
he is a better judge of justice, if not
of law, than the district attorney. It is
not a good example for these police
men, who are supposed to aid in ad-
miniStering the law, to set themselves
above the law and to dictate to the
grand jury as to what cases they shall
investigate. Counsel, in passing, said
that the present grand jury was the
best he ever saw impane.ed. lie lad
done a great deal of business quickly
and expeditiousiy and with proper re-
gard to the public welfare. In conclu-
sion, the district attorney said if Chief
Pratt had answered the question put
to him. as a law-abiding citizen should
have done, all this publicity-of which
he seemed afraid-would not have
been. had in Salt Lake city. He insisted
that this writ could not be used as
reVisOry proceeding, and asked that the
demurrer be sustained.
Judge Powers.
Judge Powers. in reply, said that
by the demurrer the facts set up in
the petition were admitted to be true.
The district attorney, in his statement
to the court in the presence of the
grand jury, said that he reluctantly
had been compelled to undertake this
investigation at the instance of q num-
Der of people who lived in the neigh
borhood where the scandal is reported
to have occurred, and that finally a
respectable gentleman comes along and
demands this investigation. and to
satisfy the curiosity Of these people,
not for the purpose Of obtaining an in
dictment, the district attorney had I'M
dertaken to bring the matter before
the grand jury for investigation
Counsel went on to show that in the
courtroom the grand jury had not said
a word as to the witness not answer
! ing; the district attorney had assumed
to act for the jury, but without any
legal right so to do. From whom or
where did the district attorney obtain
the power to speak for the grand jury,
was one of the questions that coun-
sci now desired TO discuss-who con-
stituted him its foreman and made
him that investigating, inquisitorial
body of fifteen men combined in one?
Judge Powers defended Chief Pratt in
the line of action which he rad adop-
ted in declining to divulge the name Of
a lady in this case under circumstan-
ces stated by. him, and asserted that
he had acted only as an honorable
man would have done
If the public prosecutor for Utah
were entitled to the authority and
power which he seemed to arrogate to
himself, said counsel with q sneer, it
would be as well perhaps if the grand
jury system were abolished. He had
no right, however. to dictate to a
grand jury as to what should or should
not be done. Legal authorities were
cited, among them Church, on habeas
corpus. The judge laid great stress
upon the fact that the grand jury had
not yet made any report upon the
matter.
This witness, he contenied, vas the
proper person to judge whistler or not
the answering Of the question would lie
conducive to public justice. The an
swer to that question was priViledged
and was so defined by the statute, and
therefore, the witness in refusing to
answer was not in contempt. Counsel
held that the district attorney, by STIR
ring up this scandal, had done more in
jury to the moral tone of the COM
munity that he, good man that he is,
can make amends for if he lives for
a hundred years. The district attorney
is not the mouthpiece or the keeper Of
the consciences of the members of the
grand jury. He, said counsel, is as
much off in his law on that point as
he is when he says that the judge of
the court had a right TO go into the
grand jury room if he chose.
Judge Bartch here said that he had
questioned the grand jury himself as
to the witness refusing to answer.
Judge Powers-Not in this case. In
the case of Harte your honor did, but
not in this case.
Counsel, continuing, said he hoped
never again to see a person deprived
of his liberty without due process OF
law as he held had beeen done in the
case of Chief Pratt. He denied that
the grand jury had the power to com
mand a witness to appear before the
court. Counsel said the district attor-
new was simply a, creature of the
statutes, although he assumed TO De Ihe
Pooh-Bah of Utah.
Judge Judd. interrupting- do not
intend TO give counsel an opportunity
to deliver a lecture on me. l thought
he was going to argue on this writ of
habeas corpus.
Counsel quoted authorities to prove
that the question was privileged, and
that the district attorney had no power
to speak for the grand jury; that that
hody not having spoken or made any
cornpgaint the commitment was ille-
gal and that the commitment was de-
fec4iye in not stating facts sufficient
and was therefore void.
Further, Judge Powers said, the wit
ness had informed him that on enter
ing the grand jury room, after leaving
the court room, one OF the
grand jurors had told Chief Pratt not
to answer the question:
Tn conclusion, he said that it was not
shown that the grand jury desired the
ouestion answered. The district at
forney. who had no authority, had said
CO aus that was all. AS a matter of
iustice he demanded the release of