The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-12-14
{: RIDICULOUS RULING.

I &c4 IN the case OF the United
rs Va w. P. Willis. tried at Beaver.
nie articulars of which have already
lpeRn She'd in The Herald The
i defendent to avoid expense ana fur
Their Jnenhle, made no appeal from the
4 decision. but took a mild sentence to
get done with the case. That is a. mat
ter Of regret to people who watched
the case and hoped to have the matter
tested in the Supreme Court Of the
TERRITORY.
Judge Bartch quotes several author
tiles to support certain points of his
opinion which are not subjects Of dis
Ipute, and which simply give an ap-
pearance of legal lore without touching
the main issue. The point of dispute
was the scope and effect Of the am
nesty granted by President Cleveland
as compared with those Of the Har-
rison proclamation. Of course. there
are no authorities to be cited on that,
as the case was without precedent.
We were hardly prepared for SO sim
gular piece of reasoning as. the opin-
ion now published, even from the pen
of Judge Bartch. We did not believe
that a judge on the bench could have
50 little comprehension of the plain,
common sense meaning Of words as is
exhibited IN his decision. The amnesty
of President Harrison covers nothing
but the offense of "unlawful cohabita-
ton under the color of polygamous or
plural marriages." and applies only to
such persons, liable to the penalties
for that offense who had since Novem-
Der 1st, 1890, abstained from such I'M
lawful rehabilitation. There can be
nothing clearer than that to any one
who uses his common sense.
But Judge Bartch CONSTITUTES that
language SO as to cover, not only the
offense of unlawful cohabitation, but
all the other offenses for which pen
alties are prescribed under the acts of
Congress in reference to polygamous
practices. That is astounding in view
of the specific application of the par
don and amnesty to the one offense of
unlawful cohabitation, and that merely
when committed under the color of
plural marriage.
The judge makes great deal of the
word penalties" because it is in the
plural, and that is the only peg on
which he can hang his remarkable
theory. But there are two penalties
for unlawful cohabitation under the
statute; one is a fine not to exceed
three hundred dollars, the other
is imprisonment not to exceed
SIX months. Both penalties or
either may be inflicted, or either
or both may be modified from the
maximum, in the discretion of the
court.
To stretch the amnesty granted
specifically to but one offence, the least
of ali as to its penalties, to cover the
greater offences of which no mention
is made. is as near complete absurdity
as anything ever embodied in a Judicial
ruling.
That palpable error is made Ito do
duty to embrace another, For sure it
is that one false step will ever lead to
more" He says that the amnesty proc
lamation Of President Cleveland COW
ers no other offences. and no other
period OF time, than the proclamation
of President Harrison.
Governor West, Secretary Carlisle,
President Cleveland and a number of
legal gentlemen, together with hun
dreds of persons who were under dis
abilities and subject to penalties from
which the Harrison document did not
relieve them, went to all the trouble
Of the later amnesty to no purpose,
according to the 1uminary that shed
its judicial beams from the bench at
Beaver, and the whole business of
Cleveland's amnesty was unnecessary,
worthless and void,
Language could not make anything
palmer than that the Cleveland am
nesty was intended to cover the whole
ground of the offences named in the
anti-polygamy laws up to the date of
the proclamation, except in case Of
those offenders who had not complied
with the condition Of the Harrison
amnesty.
1t names specifically the offenses of
polygamy. bigamy, adultery or un-
lawful cohabitation under color of
or plural marriages, while,
as we have shown, the Harrison procla- |
nation mentions but one-the least of
all. The sole condition imposed by the
Harrison amnesty was that those
to whom pardon was granted
should faithfully obey the |
laws of the United States |
mentioned in the proclamation. No
other condition is prescribed.
Any person who has been pardoned |
bv the Harrison amnesty who, after its |
date-Jan. 4. 1S9S-committed the Of
fence of unlawful cohabitation was to !
be prosecuted vigorously. The Cleve- !
land amnesty covers the whole !
ground of all the offenses under the |
act of Congress named up to its date, |
except the offence of unlawful cohabi
tation committed by one who had |
been amnestied under the Harrison
proclamation, and that subsequent to
Tan. 4. 1898.
Nothing less and nothing more can |
be fairly deduced out of the two in
The idea tina, because Har- !
rison pardoned no one VINO had COM
mitted unlawful Capitalization after
Nov. /, 1890, the Cleveland amnesty
reached no farther forward than that
date, is preposterous. The word con
ditions' does not apply to that past
date but to the future keeping of the
laws after Jan. 4, 1893, and TO that
alone.
Should there be another case similar
to that of W. P. Willis IL ought to be
carried up to the Supreme Court,
where, we have not the shadow of a