The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-12-09
THE CONTEMPT CASES.

/
zled. Chief Pratt and the other Of
ficers held in contempt are free men,
but will be called before the grand
jury again on Monday Whether they
will be again required to answer the
question which they declined to reply
| to we cannot. say but it is possible
the matter may be settled without
further trouble. under the considera-
ton that whoever the parties impli-
Gated may be, there is not sufficient
evidence to justify the finding of an
Indictment.
II has been a n1uddled. up affair
from the beginning and the condition
of affairs was not improved by the
manner in which it was handled by
the court. The idea of acceding to
the suggestion of counsel for the de-
Tense to poll the grand jury" that
they might give information, in open
court, which they were sworn to keep
secret was painfully ludicrous. Then
the habeas corpus proceeding, for the
judge to have chance to- rescind his
own order. did not improve the mat
ter.
The court ruled that the question
put TO the defendant was proper and
! that it must be answered, the defen-
dant refused to comply with the de-
cision of the court, and that was the
contempt for which he was committed.
Then the Judge whose order was held
in contempt takes a turn, and on the
technicality that the public prosecutor,
and not the grand jury through it's
foreman, presented the matter to the
court, discharges all the defendants
who had refused to comply with his
decision. The fact. that the grand jury
were all present and by their pres
ence and silence acquiesced in what
the public prosecutor said to the
court in their behalf, does not appear
to strike the court as a feature in the
proceedings.
The popular feeling is one of pleas
ure that Chief Pratt and his asso-
ciates are released. Notwithstanding
the curiosity to know the names that
have been shaded. people feel glad
| that the promise made of secrecy has
not been broken. But there is little or
no dispute as to the facts that the Of
ficers did not comply with the law, and
that they were in contempt of the
court, also that if the grand jury
think proper to press the question they
are legally bound to answer and will
have to take the consequences of re-
fusal, whatever they may be.
A great deal has been made out of
the action of Judge Judd which is un-
fair to him and is contrary to the
facts. In the first place he was not
responsible for the placing of the mat
ter of the alleged public offense be-
fore the grand jury, as mas been made
to appear. 1t was other parties, and
they had a right to make their de-
mand for an investigation. In the
next place it is no new thing for the
prosecuting officer to present to the
court the case of a. witness who re-
fuses to answer a question to the
grand jury. AS to his presence with
that body and his interrogations, he
has right to be there and to ques-
ton witnesses. The fault with him
in the eyes of his libellers is that he
is not of their political complexion.
1t is amusing to see the zeal dis
played by certain parties defending
the public officers in their refusal to
reply to questions which court de-
cides to be proper and orders them to
| answer, while the same individuals
fairly frothed at the mouth, not very
long ago, when private citizens so de-
clined. and were branded as defiers of
the laws of the United States and its
| institutions and their Imprisonment
was demanded, even when they were
women with babes in their arms. This
is indeed a world of change and incon-
sistency. Equity and impartiality are
all jewels rarely to be found even
where they might most be expected to
shine.