Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-12-08

one which wse decisive In this case, No
Tar NJ its gal aspect was concerned,
was found In section o SIS, subdivision
., compiled laws Of Utah, wherein
counsel for the prisoner claimed
that the queHtions were priv.
legged. The attention OF the court
hal been directed to that statute,
which saidi"A public officer cannot be
examined as 10 Communications made
10 him In his Official capacity when the
public Interests would suffer by the dis
closure" The question, therefore, was
was the prisoner privileged by viz
tue OF that statute under tho circum.
stances OF this case7 The statute quoted
referred 10 communication which
were made TO y public oiiicor. In this
Instance the person charged with re-
iuting TO answer was the chief OF
police % this city, who claimed that In
the discharge Of the duties OF his
onice he promised the woman involved
That he would not reveal her name.
From his own statement, aud from the
facts A. they appeared before the court,
the information that was within his
bosom was obtained by him, that
ne know the name Of the party but
had promised that he would not reveal
u.
His honor said he took II that this
statute did not shield an officer under
such circumstance. The promise was
unnecessary IN order 10 get tho iniOr.
nation. II 1t had turned out that the
Information could not nave been OBJ
tniuod except upon the promise Of the
officer that 1t should DO Kept secret, he
thought, the court would DO very
strongly Inclined ut least 10 sustain
him la that promise. hut under the
prevailing circumstances, 10 say that
an officer was Justified In refusing 10
answer u question before tho grand
jury would DO 10 hold that he
might even stand up aud soc a
murder committed In cold blood,
aud yet Tor come Tenson
promise the offender that he would
never reveal his name; he might then
10 before a court Of Justice or u grand
Jury while investigating tho crime,
reiuse 30 answer, aud tbs court would
be pOworltua 10 enforce lts order. Su0h
was not the law.
Fiom careful examination OF the
oise, owing 10 IL gravity, the bearing
which IL had upon the community aud
mUnt Of Ito orders, ho was convinced
that THIS was no matter In which the
prisoner was privileged. Tho question
entertain otherwise for one moment.
lie tOUk II, therefore, that this boiug a
question before the grand Jury
which was a part and parcel
Of tho court, In fact the
al a H..
motion to detect aud punish crime
and to guard the iutorcs,s OF the social
syaIum-undcT all the circumstances
there could be no doubt as ~ the COURTS
Jurisdiction.
Tho remaining question was upon
the record. A. no uad already stated,
tho preliminary steps In this case were
taken Ia An Informal manner, because
very frequently queAtlOns were pro-
pounded 10 n wituuia before tue grand
jury when the former was honestly Ia
doubt as to whether or not no was
prlvilegud-aa 10 whether or not he
was compelled 10 answer, ana 40 did
nor choose 10 answer unlcsa ordered by
this court. The grand Jury appeared
In court, a statement was made aud the
Court said, "You are not privileged;
a
rule there was nothing further heard OF
Il. Here II was different.
The court must mold, as a matter OF
Law, that the proper spokesman for the
grand jury was their foreman, and
that Though him they must speak In
this clnsi VI cAses.
IL was entirely question for the
grand Jury Themselves 20 determine
whether or not they would investigate
au alleged oilense. Neither the Judge
Of this court nor any other could enter
the grand jury ROOM nor could he In.
qulru into any OF It's secrets nor into
tue reasons fof theig examination into
any alleged Otiense. 10 10 were 70.
ported 10 the grAndJur that an otionte
had been committed, anu that state.
ment were supported by reasonable
evidence as 10 the probability Of III
truth, II became their sworn duty 10
examine into II. They were, how.
ever, tho judges ~ 10 whether or not
the evidence was such ~ would war
rant their proceeding further
The court must admit that this
seemed 10 DO an unpleasant case.
Nevertheless, II was not for hun 10
question the motive VI tho grand Jury,
which he did not attempt TO do, nor
did he question the motive Of any "
the ollioers OF this court, 40 far ~ he
could Learn. IL was solely their prlvi.
lego 10 act ~ they believed themselves
10 be In duty bound under their Oaths
when facts were laid before them, aud
II at any stage Of au investigation they
found that no oilonie had been COM
mitted, they could drop tho inquiry
there and then. II was not for the
court TO say either that they should 10
on or cease.
Ho thought, however, under the
circumstances OF this case, aud the
proceedings which had boon had, that
before the commitment was further en-.
forced the prisoner should DO
given another opportunity 10
appear before the grand jury
and answeT %, aud that tho en-
tire matter should DO lott Il that
body. They should deoldc-il was
their duty TO duclde-as 10 whether or
not the case should bn proceeded with.
IL was wholly within their province 10
determine whether or not any case
brought under their notice was u
proper one for investigation.
Az tbs point had been raised here
that some Of the grand Jurors were not
willing to proceed IN tuis particular
matter, he had come to tho conclusion
that the ipIisOner imight 60 before
the grand Jury again " they 10 desired
and the questions be ptopOunded 10
him Ia proper way; then they could
report to the court u necessary,
District Attorney Judd-May II
please your honor, do not know