The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-06-12
States d16 U. s. Supreme Court Reports,
p. so.
Mr.. Smoot Responsible for the Con-
duct of the Organization to
Which He Belongs,

Mr.. Smoot Responsible for the Con-
duct of the Organization to
Which He Belongs.
1t la urged In behalf of Mr., Smoot
that conceding II to be truo that the hrst
president and some of the apostles are
living In polygamy and that some or the
leaders Of the Mormon church encourage
Polygamous practices; Mr Smoo, nm hlnnseli SCI.
lygamy, and that there is no cyldencv
that he has personally and individually
encouraged the practice OF polygamy oy
! members OF the Mormon church, and that
he ought not to be condemned because OF
the acts of his associates. This position
ls wholly untenoble. Mr.. Smoot is an In.
scparablc part OF the governing body or
the Mormon church-the first presidency
and twelve apostles and those VINO COM
pose that organization form unit, an
entirety and whatever Is done by that
organization is the act OF each and every
| member thereof, and whatever policy ~
adopted and pursued by the body %% which which
must be held TO be responsible Tor as n
member Of that body. That one may be
legally. as well as morally, responsible
for unlawful acts which he does not him
self commit Is a rule of law too elemen-
tary TO require discussion What one
does by another he does by himself Is
maxim as old as tho common law. Ana
as the first presidency and twelve apos-
ties of tho Mormon church havo author
ity over the spiritual AFFAIRS OF the mem
governing body OF said church has su-
promo authority over the members o
that church in respect to the practice
of polyeamy and polygamous cohaolta-
tion.
In England in former years, and under
the common law, matters OF marriage, d.
Vorce. and Legitimacy were under the
Jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts Of
the Kingdom, In which the punishment
was in the nature of a spiritual penalty
for the good OF tho soul of the offender,
accommodation or expulsion from tho
church. q Blackstone's Commcntaries:
a3; Blackstone's Commentaries, ~;
Blackstone's Commentaries, 16S and note,
Reynolds v United States, eS u. g. Jas.
1Gi-l65. And in later years. while the
civil law now prohibits and Furnishes
bigamy. tho authorities OF every Christian
church in this country take oognizance or
matrimonial affairs and by the authority
of the church in spiritual matters prevent
and punish by censure or expulsion any
infractlon OF tho rules of the church re-
garding marriage
The testimony taken upon this invostl-
CATION shows beyond controversy that the
authority OF the first presidency and the
twelve apostles of the Mormon church
over the members of said church is such
that were the said first presidency md
twelve apostles to prohibit the practice
of polyGamy and polygamous cohabita>
ton by It's members and abandon The
practice themselves and expel from the
church all who should persist In tho
practice. those offenses would instantly
cease in that church. And the fact that
not a single member OF tho Mormon
church has ever fallen into dis5lvor on
account OF polygamous practices is con-
elusive proof that the ruling authorities
of that church countenance and cncour-
age polygamy.
cannot be separated from that of his as
sociates In the government OF the Nor
mon church. Whatever his private opn-
Ions OF his private conduct may he, he
stands before the world rs an integral
part of the organization whicn cncour-
ages, counsels, and approves. polygamy,
which not only falls TO discipline those
who break the laws OF the country. but.
on the contrary loads with Eonors and
favors those who arc among the most
noted polygamists within the pale OF that
church.
It Is an elementary principle OF law
that where two or more persons are as
ISOLATED together in an net, an organiza-
ton, an enterprise, or 4 course OF con-
duct, which Is in its character or pur-
pose unlawful the act OF any one OF
those who are thus associated Is tho act
OF ALL and the act of any number or the
associates Is the act of each one OF the
others.
An eminent legal authority says:
Every person entering into conspiracy or
common design already formed is deemed In
law party TO all acts done by any OF the
other parties. before or afterward. in further
ance Of the common design. The principle on
which the acts and declarations of other con-
spirators and acts done at different times,
are admitted in evidence against the persons
prosecuted is that by tho oct OF conspiring to-
to themselves as body, the attribute OF In
divlduality 30 far os regards the prosecution
the common s aSsSn EN- mus n o
of that design a part OF the res Gestao and
therefore the act OF all q Greenleat on Evi-
dence. secs, SO. 81. Sell also Commonwealth
vs Warren. Mass. IA; People ys. Mather. 4
wcnd 229 go; People We. Peckens, 1S3 n. Y,
| SIS, 5ss Se3. United States V. Cooling IL Wheat
AnnHT nv cd
States, Peters, $ss. 3e5; Nudd ct al. VS. Bur
rows. 81 U. S, a20. 4ss; United States va.
1880, Stewart vs. Johnson. 3 Har. IN J)
81; Hinchman VS.. Rtchic, Brightley's N. p.
| tPa.), 1i3: Freeman We. Stins. 81 Leg Int
| IPa), oS, Spies ct al We People, 122 I'LL
nols. l.
The case last cited illustrates this prin-
| ciple moro forcibly than any OF the 9TH
ers referred to In that case, which Is
commonly known as the anarchists
case" there was, as to some OF the de-
PENDANTS, very little evidence. and as to
others OF the defendants no satisfactory
evidence that they were present at the
commission of the murder with which
| they were charged, or advised or intend
ed the murder which was committed by
an unknown person. But II was proved
organization known as the International
Association of Chicago. having for Its OBJ
ject the destruction OF tho law and gov
ernmcnt and incidentally of the police
and government, and that some OF the
defendants had. by spoken and
printed appeals to workingmen and
others urged the use of force. deadly
weapons and dynamite in resistance to
the law and Its officers.
In denying the motion for now trial
In the anarchists case the Judge who
presided at the trial used tho following
language
Now on the question OF tho Instructions
whether these defendants, or any or them
anticipated expected the throwing OF the
bomb on tho night OF the ith OF May is not
question which 1 need to consider, because
tho conviction cannot be sustained IL that Is
necessary to a conviction. however much evil
dence of II there may be. because the instruc-
tlons do not 60 upon that ground. Tho jury
were not instructed TO find tho defendants
guilty II they believed thoy participated in
the throwing OF that bomb, advised en-
cournged tho throwing OF that bomb. any
thing of that sort Conviction has not gono
upon the ground that they did have any per-
oonal participation in the particular act which
caused the death of Degan but the conviction
proceeds upon the ground under tho inetruc-
tlons, that they had generally by speech and
print advised large classes OF the people. not
particular individuals, but large classes, to
commit murder, and have left tho commission.