Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-06-16

dbt puls hdlnls
The conduct Of Mr.. smoot in this re-
gard cannot be separated from that OF
his associates In the government Of the
Mormon Church. Whatever his private
opinions or his private conduct may be,
he stands before the world as an integ-
raj part Of the organization which en-
courages. counsels. and approves polys.
amy, which not only falls to discipline
those who break the laws Of the coun-
try, but, on the contrary loads with
honors and fayors those who are
among the most noted polygamlsts
within the pale Of that Church.
II Is an elementary principle OF law
that where two or more persons are
associated together On an act. an or.
ganizatl0n, an enterprise. or a course
Of conduct. which is In its character or
purpose unlawful. the act Of any one
OF those who are thus associated Is tho
act Of Ell. and the act Of any number OF
the associates Is the act OF each one Of
the others.
An eminent legal authority SAYS:
Every person entering into a con-
sprGcy or common design already
formed Is deemed In law a party TO all
acts done by and Of the other parties
before OF afterwards, 10 furtherance
Of the common design. The principle
an which the acts and declarations OF
other conspirators and acts done az
different times. are admitted In evil
dence against the persons prosecuted
Is that by the act OF conspiring together
the consplrators have jointly assumed
to themselves, as a body. the attribute
or Individuality so far as regards the
prosecution NJ the common design thus
rendering whatever Is done or said by
snyone IN furlherance NJ that design a
TART Of the res gestae and therefore thu
act Of all e Grcenleaf on Evidence.
sec 49, a. See also Commonwealth VS..
warren, Mass, a. People VS.. Mather
! Wend 22g. 260. People VS. peckens.
lS5 y. Y, 5ls $50 1913 United states vs.
Gooding, - Wheaton. 49,, 46g. Ameri-
can Fur Company vs.. United States,
Peters 35S. sos. Nudd ~ al VS. Bur.
rows, 81 l.. :. 42f. 43s United States W.
Mitchell, ] Hughes, i39 Federal cases
No. 1880. Stewart VS.. Johnson. Har
On j.. 81. Hinchman vs. Richie,
| Brghueys y. p (Pa.), las: Freeman
vs. slime "a Leg. Int (Pa). e5 Spies
ct AL vs.. People. l22 Illinois, I'D
The case last cited illustrates this
principle more forcibly than any Of thu
others 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 t'e defendants no satisfac-
tory evidence that they were present az
the commission Of the murder with
| which they were charged. or advised
or intended The murder which was COM
mlt,ed by an unknown person. But Il
was proved that the defendants were
| members Of an organization known as
the International association of ChlCa-
90. having for It's object the destruction
81 the law and government ana Incl
denially Of the police and militia as
the representatives, or law and govern
mtnt, and that some Of the de-
| PENDANTS had. by spoken and print
ed appeals 10 workngmen and
others urged the use Of force. deadly
weapons. and dynamite IN resistance
10 the law and It's officers
In denying the motion FOR new trial
In the ANARCHISTS case the Judge who
presided at the trial used the follow
ing language:
"Now on the question OF the instruc-
lions. whether these defendants. or any
OF them, anticipated or expected the
throwing Of the bomb on the night Of
the An Of May Is not question which
! need 10 consider. because the con-
viction can not be sustained. II that Is
necessary 10 conviction. however
much evidence Of It there may be. bA-
cause the instructions DO not go upon
that ground. The jury was not m.
structed to find the defendants guilty e
they believed they participated I'm the
throwing OF that bomb, or advised or
encouraged the throwing Of that bomo.
or anything Of that sort Conviction
has not gone upon the ground that thry
did have any personal participation IN
the particular act which caused the
death Of Degan, but the conviction pro-
ceeds upon the ground under the IN
structions. that they had generally hy
speech and print, advised large classes
Of the people. not particular individI-
ais, but large classes, TO commit muir
der, and have left the commission.
time and place TO the individual win
and within, or caprice. OF whatever u
may he, OF each individual man who
listened 10 their advice and influence
by that advice somebody not known lii
throw the bomb which caused Degan's
death" Century Magazine. April 1898,
?. $50
Il Will be seen by the decision Of ,he
court upon the motion FOR a new trial
In the case Of Spies et al VS. people that
the anarchists were not convicted upon
the ground that they had participated
IN the murder Of which they were con-
vcted Whether they we're or were
. not participants In the commission Of
this crime was not the main question al
issue. They we're convicted because
they belonged to an organization which.
as an organization. advised the com.
mission Of acts which would lead 20
| murder
on Ike import is the decision IN the
case u Davis vs. Beason decided by
the supreme court Of the United states
IN 1859. the decision being reported 10
volume 1873, United states supreme
court reports. page .3S. At the time NJ
this decision the revised statutes q tlie
state OF Idaho provided that no person
"vho IL a member 81 any order. organ
izati0n. or association which teachfs
advises. counsels or encourages Is
members. devote5. or any other person
TO commit the crime Of bigamy or poly
gamy. or any other crime defined by
law, eir cr as rite or ceremony a.
such oder organization or association
! or otherwise is permitted TO vote AT
any election or 90 hold any position ~
Office OF honor trust OF prft within
this territory
This provision Of lav ne supreme
cour; ~ tho United states held 20 he
constitutional aud legal Il win be oh'
served that this act disfranchises GER
tain persons and makes them Ineligible
10 any position or office ~ honor. trust
or profit. not Tor committing the crime
Of polygsmy. nor for teaching. adr's-
ing, counsellng OF encouraging others
10 commit the crime. but because ~
their membership IN am organization
which teaches. advises counsels ana
encourages others % commit The crime
Of p0lygamy. I'm Wooley vs. Watkins y
Idaho Rep. J5S 56sl. The court says
"Orders, organizations anG associa-
tions hV whatever name they may be