The Blackfoot optimist. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1907-1918, 1911-11-23
: An open Letter

Approaching clear cut stan(
your paper has taken recently regard
ing the local option question, shoult
like to- offer a brief comment ON re-
cent local cases. l do not pretend te
know all the intricacies of the law
involved in these cases, speak only
fr-tm moral standpoint.
In the Gutke case of Shelley which
was before the court last Wednesday
and Thursday there were seven wit
neSses, all Of whom were under 18
years OF age. One of them testified
that he bought two bcttles of beer i'm
the drug store on Sunday and two
other boys testified that they helped
drink. it. Four other boys supple
mented the testimony. So. far as an
outsider could see, there was no at
tempt on the part of the defense to
deny the fact that the boys got the
beer from the defendant in violation
nf law. The jury, however, returned
a verdict of mot guilty..
l think Ihaye the facts Of the case
when say that the only reason
why such verdict was rendered
was that the Court had instructed
the jury that, since the boy who
bought the beer had previously plamt
ned the purchase with two either boys
that therefore all three of the boys
were "accOmplices in the crime
and nor this reason their testimony
In the case ives not to be admitted,
and that If the defendane was con-
victed they must convict him on the
testimony of the other four witness
es alone.
If this decision was correct. then
the jury, doubtless, did their duty
because it was plain that the testi-
mony Nof the other four boys. taken
aS-ne, was not sufficient to warrant
a verdict of guilty However, in spite
OF this decision of the court. several
OF the jurors on the first ballcH voted
for conviction. When the meaning
OF the Courts instruction was furth-
er discussed. all but two of these
changed their votes.
Viewing this decision from the NOR
al point of view, one of two things
IS true. Either the law upon which
this decision was based is INADEQUATE
and, in this particular case, unjust.
because it invalidates the testimony
OF the man who buys the booze and
the man who drinks it or else the
Court was wrong in his decision,
and II wrong, his act shculd receive
public disapprovaL How can we. in
the h-ce of these facts, hope to bring
'bo' 'tleggers' to justice?
We are not trying, to dictete to
the Court. We are, however. t~y--
ing to create public moral sentiment
that will uphold the decision of the
C-Grt when that decisi-n lis in keen
ing with moral betterment, and that
will show its disapprovsl when that
decision is otherwise
A few days ago in the Prob tie
Court man was fined $40 90 for
stealing ccal, everybody said the
punishment YVES just. We say SO
too. But we can see no reason whv
a man should be condemned for
theft by which he is to save his wife
and children from the cold, and an
ather man, sh!culd be upheld in an
business that is not onlv
running manhood, but is driving
women and children out irto the
sold. The difficulty is that the one
case is considered a real crime and
The other is not. The only reason
WHY the sale of liquor continues in
violation ri the law is because MANY
people of the commur ity do not CON
slider 1t crime and are therefore
not interested We plead for sn
awakening of the sleeping cH- science
and deeper interest ef each indi-
1idual in this question. w. r. Jewell.