Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-05-10
JUDGE TANNERS OPINION
What His Ruling Was in Sunday
Liquor Case.

In order 70 more clearly define Judg'
Tanners position in the liquor casei
some OF the decisions quoted by The
court for the purpose Of sustaining
the conclusions reached are here cited
While II IS admitted that the supreme
courts OF Illinois, New York, Massa.
chusetts. Wisconsin, Mississippi Iowa
| Connecticut, and others. have, In SINH
| lar cases, rendered decisions IN Opposi-
| ton 20 that OF Judge Tanner, the SUI
| preme court Of the United States has
| decided In support OF his position. In
the case Of Grimm w the United
States, involving an infractol OF the
postal regulations. II Is held that the
detective, suspectng the defendant.
had n right to send a decoy letter
through the mails and request reply
from Grimm In order 10 detect him In
one Instance of the many suspected in
fractions, and for the purpose OF secur-
ing evidence
II Is contended by Judge Tanner that
the needs Of public morality demand
that an officer and not a private indi-
yidual be detailed 10 detect offenses
against the law the officer being the
paid servant Of the people employed for
that purpose, It Is not necessary TO
suppose that the one instance OF sale
OF liquor 10 the officer constitutes the
entire offense against the law. but Of
necessity IL esta blishes the fact that the
vendor Is at his post for the purpose Of
supplying with liquor any applicant
therefor In this case Judge Tanner
holds that the act Of the officer was
inspired by an honest unselfsh desire TO
detect crime. They believed the ordn-
anoe was being violated and simply
put themselves In a position 10 discover
the facts The supreme court Of Col
orado directly held that the object OF
the officers was to enrich the city and
to pursue an offender,
The fact that the officers were In
citizens clothing, or that they were
officers at all, is not defense that can
be interposed by the defendant. The
court held that the ohicers- We're not In
parl dellcto.
The decision Of the United States SUI
preme Court against Grimm Is APP
proved and cited extensively In An
drews, plaintiff In error W. United
oNdltSt io1 u - fsVi tlitl WIN approx
al in Moore vs. 81 OF Mo, 1883 T. s., $50;
and In Rosen VS. L. 5. 16l u. s. AZ THAT
an obscene paper mailed IN response TO
decoy letter is no defense to an In
diotment for mailing t."
Colorado cases are also quoted by
Judge Tanner as follows:
81 Pacific. 10l5-No penalty was pro-
vided by ordinance and purchase was
made for purpose OF testing case Held
that city could not complain OF an act
the doing Of which II solicited. City ais
much responsible as violator.
5S Pacific. 7g6-Court found that liquor
purchased was for purpose OF involving
seller In O violation OF the ordinance;
that the town attorney might pursue
him for a penalty. That the only mo-
tive was 10 compel the victim TO pay
his money into the town treasury, to
extort money from him.
80 Pacific, 500, court found that the
object In selling beer was to involve
The defendant, In liability to the city
and that the city would not be allowed
TO turn the act 80 committed 10 It's own
advantage While the city may reap
some pecunlaIy advantage from pen
llties imposed II Is meager, the advan-
age comes from the moral support Civ |
m by the people, when the laws are |
'nforced' and crime suppressed