Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1895-06-20
OF WHAT is TAYLOR GUILTY?

OF WHAT is TAYLOR OUlLTY7
In order that there may be no room
for an honest misunderstanding of the
declaration, The Press will again de-
clare that there has been no arrange
ment nor compromise nor compound
ing OF any sort or kind between the
prosecution and the defense in the
Taylor case, either as to the term of
the imprisonment or the particular
statute under which he will he tried, or
the appraisement OF his property Ur
that to be turned in by his bOndsmen.
No such arrangement was suggested
by TaylOr's representatives. No ar
rangement OF any sort or kind was
necessary-TayIOr has had enough OF
wandering over the hemisphere,
hunted and hustled and liable ut any
time to be pOunced upon. He was
thoroughly willing to quit. All he or
his representatives wanted was that
those who We're interested with him
should have time to conclude certain
negotiations which would require less
sacrifice in order to meet the Obliga-
tons due the state.
There was no agreement as to the
particular statute under which he
should be arraigned. No representa-
tive Of either the prosecution or the
defense, in any interview which the
reporter of The Press had with them,
intimated anything rs to whether
Taylor would be tried under section
1865 OF the compiled laws, which Is
among the miscellaneous provisions
OF the statute on assessment and tax
alton, or under section G69S, which re-
lates to "crimes against the revenue
and property OF the state" or under
section G797. which relates to embez-
element by officers Of public or pri-
vate cOrpOlatiOns-a public corpora
ton being one formed or organized for
the government of Il portion" OF the
state. But attorneys whose legal judg-
ment in criminal cases would be gen
orally accepted as good have expressed
the opinion prior to any agitation OF
the matter OF TaylOr's return, that his
prosecution must ultimately come
under section G698, which Is a part of
that chapter Of the statutes pertain
ing directly and specifically and in
the property and revenue OF the state. .
ACllulu1y ltIu VI NOUISc IlO kcuCCdI
stature can take precedence OF spe-
cial One,' and for that reason it would
seem that a state officer who is guilty
OF a "crime against the revenue OF the
state" by "appropriating to his own
use money received by him as such
officer on behalf OF this state" is tria-
BILE under the statute which evidently
has been specially enacted for such
cases-at least, rs has been said, this
is the view Of several good lawyers,
and it was commented ON as one OF the
peculiarities OF the criminal law in this
state-and it Is by no means the first
time that peculiarities have been
found in statutes when a prisoner Is
arraigned and tried Hereunder and
defended as Taylor would have been
defended. Wllatever The Press has
had to say about the statute which
would cover Taylor's case has been in
spired by recognition OF the fact that
he must be tried exactly and precisely
under only such provisions Of law rs
specially and directly and technically
apply to the Offense Of which he has
been guilty. Not Il single suggestion
AS to the question has been broached
by either the prosecution or the de-
fense.-SiOnx Falls Press.