Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-12-07


the mnn'suamr. ihink I would know
MIN II ! ehouli s,c him."
"lf oIHly 5oIuuk know their NAMES,
tell The gram jury tue uamo VI each
Icrsou.n
81 decline to answer this questi0u."
Which said question petitioner dc.
ciuUd 10 answer ON tbs ground that
the Information Sought for by taiI
grand jury hal been received by him
90 his capacity OF chief Of police Of Salt
Lake CITY, and that lac bad given his
word TO Keep thu same secret.
Petitioner alleges on Information aud
belief that no charge that any law Of
tnis Territory, uor OF The United
5,alcs, had been violated ia t,eu lsid
bcioto sNil grand jury, aud in tle
c0uro OF tho usauon Of which
saii question wa asked.
Iunt uald question Was askUd Ia the
cOufHu ui Gu invUftgpUou OF an al.
legged acau Ihl, o. published In the Sal.
LnEu Il5uUt, anu that the ends uf
pubic laBICs would 20. bu slhsufvul
ny an answer 10 baii question,
Petitioner alleges thai upon his de-.
cliniug % answer nlii question hc was
conducted into oJltt aud tue public
prosecutor Hon. J. ", JudJ,pr.ceCdgd
10 makB a long Hiatpnent 10 tns court
that this petitioner had declined 70
answer said qu,ali0n. That 40 report
was made ~ tne grams jury thou. h
No foreman Of the maitel aud tAinfH
herein re uuuI g., TIE only thing
slated By aald grand jury uuiuE the
simple aanuuuCrm ut W tho foreman
tuat the matter IaI U1uu forced u.uu
tue Jury. Ilu JUICY made no go. or
.Irt said question uaI been lee. 100
IuiiiiJuer and no declined TO answer.
IhAt petitioner lriug called upon vs.
the court stated that Ls uid not desire
TO commit any contempt Of court iu'
that hia conscience compelled him %
decline TO auswer.
That tneftupon the court informed
the jury that Ia Ia opinion this puti.
TONER snoul auswur provided II was
the opinion OF The jury that tho inter-
esis Of public Justice required II.
That theroupon tho court took the
matter under adyisemont until y. N.
Of said day.
That upon the reagemblipg OF the
said court OF said hour, the court again
stated that II was the opinion OF the
court that II the question was Insisted
upon tho witness should answer, but
Informed tue Jury that the whole mat
ter was lot tho Jury aud tuat the Jury
might rotife mt determine whether
tue Interests Of public Justice required
the quultion 10 DO answered.
Iha1 thefoupUn the jury retired 20
IT, room In clmpauy with the public
prosecutor ana petitioner. That said
Jury did nOt deliberate upon said ques-
lion ~ 10 whether petitioner should
answer or not aud did not de.
tcrmino whether tho ends Of puI.
lie Justice required petitioner 10
answer On the uUuirAty,tU SOON as the
jury aud tho public prosecutor Hnd
your petitioner had entered said grand
Jury room, the said public prosecutor,
Of his own v0iition, nut said question
again to petitioner, and upon your
petitioner falling 10 auawer at once
conducted the grand jury aud your
petitioner into court.
That when said grand Jury returned
Into court the public prosecutor au-
nOuucod that your petitioner declined
ana refused 10 answer said question.
That raid grand jury made no report,
aud was not asked ~ make any 70.
port.
That petitioner thoTeupon demanded
that the grand Jury be- pOl.ed to ascer-
tain whether the jury desired the ques-
ton answered, wnlcu request anu dc.
mand the court refused.
That the court pronounced judgment
that your petitioner be cJmmittud into
the charge Of the United States mar
shal until no should answer said ques-
ton or until he should DO discharged
by the court.
The petitioner objected and excepied
10 the judgment OF the court for that
there was nothing before the court
upon which the court could act That
there hal been no report made at any
time upon the subject matter. That
the public prosecutor had no power nor
authority 10 speak for the grand Jury,
rhAtsaid grand Jury could only speak
through lie foreman, which had not
been done.
Petitioner alleges that the whole pro.
ceeulngs in said matter HTc void and
that said Judgment OF said court IL
void In that said grand Jury made no
report u said court and that there was
nothing before the court upon which
the court could lawfully act.
Petitioner does not attach hereto the
judgment or order Of tho court under
Shioh petitioner was committed Tor
tho reason that the same appears upon
the records anu flies Of the court and
10 which petitioner refer.
Petitioner therefore pIays the writ CT
hAbeas corpus.
o, w. Powers
HARMED PRATT