| Show TRIAL BY JURY Judge Cooley in hispopnlar work on the Principles of Constitutional Law states that the complaints of the colonists colon-ists as to violation of constitutional right were principally directed to four points I Imposing taxes without the consent of the peoples representatives 2 Keeping up standing armies in time of peace to overawe the people 3 Denying a right to trial by jury of the vicinage in some cases and providing for a transportation of persons accused of crimes in America for trial in Great Britain 4 Exposing the premises of the people to searches and their persons papers pa-pers and property toseizures on general warrants If Americans says the author were entitled to the constitutional constitu-tional rights of Englishmen it was unquestionable un-questionable that in these particulars there rights were invaded but the imperial im-perial government denied that the colonists could claimrights as against the exercise of the powers I Among therefore the plain invasion of the rights of the colonists was the trial of offenders by juries not of the neighborhood or by foreign courts So deep was the impression made by a system of oppression that tried the offending Son of Liberty before a jury of Tories that in tbe Constitution as adopted by the conyentlou of 1787 appeared the provision that All persons accused of crimes should be tried before a jury of the State in which the crime was committed com-mitted But this was not satisfactory to the people uity demanded fuller language and the extension of the right to civil cases The objection tothe plan of the convention says Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist which has met with most success in this State I and perhaps in seyeral of the other States is that relative to the want of a constitutional provision for the Trial by jury in civil cases The friends and adversaries of the plan of the conven tion if they agree on nothing else he writesconcur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury or if there is any difference between them it consists this the formerregard regard it asa as-a valuable safeguard to liberty the latter represent it as the very palladium pof free government The adversaries of the plan of the Convention those who thought the plan good enough as far as it went but that it fell short in not containing a bill of rights guaranteeing trial ng by jurv and other dear and immemorial privi leges were successful and a number of amendments were insisted upon and were adopted and engrafted into the Constitution almost at the inception of the government Trial by an impartial jury in all criminal cases and in civil cases where the value ih controversy exceeds 20 is therefore a fundamental provision of our national charter It it said the Supreme Court a right justly dear to the American people It has always been an object of deep interest and solicitude and every encroachment on it has been watched with great jealousy jeal-ousy f There lias be nmueh in last legisla5 7f fo V f C5 J lion forthe Mormons there is much in the I bill just enacted that should and does alarm every patriotic citizen whose hope for the future of the country rests upon the sacred abscrv ance of constitutional rights and immemorial im-memorial privileges A dangerous inroad in-road upon established rights becomes a precedent against as well 83 for us We cannot with impunity trample upon the liberties of others without incurring incur-ring danger Of suffering ourselves We cannot substantially deny to the Mormon the right of trial by jury without subjecting ourselves to the danger of arbitrary trial and punIshment punish-ment mentmen in 1874 Congress prescribed that the jurors should be selected one half by the probate judge and the other half by the clerk of the District Court a direct sacrifice of the principle prin-ciple of trial by jury was made It is true that the letter of the law was followed that the violation of the precedent pre-cedent was disguised under the thin mask of legal form but the law was a plain and unmistakable slaughter of aright a-right described by a great lawyer as qne of the four violated that brought about the Revolution Wherein you ask did the Poland Jaw outrage principle prin-ciple and precedent It is you say customary in many States that some designated officer should make up the jury list as for instance the sheriff It is true that said lists are in many States selected but it is equally true that in a number of the principal States of the Union the rule of selection has been done away with as repugnant to the canons of freedom and the far more equitable rule of putting every qualified person upon the lists adapted This change is in the direction direc-tion of the thought and tendency of the day and for Congress to have prescribed escribed for this Territory the unjust method selection was under any circumstances cir-cumstances improper But and here is the chief objection for that body to have deliberately enacted in the face of the wellknown division of parties in this Territory that onehalt of the jurymen jury-men should be selected by a Gentile and only onehalf by a Mormon was an infamous invasion of the constitu tional right of an impartial jury Ah well you answer Congress knows no distinction between Mormon and Gentile Gen-tile and made no presumption as to the class of men to be selected Why then did not Congress entrust the selection to one man There can be but one opinion Congress made that law intending it to bring about precisely what has followed from it Even it this be not so it was their plain duty to have foreseen the consequence the plain consequence of their law and to have carefully jealously guarded against encroachment upon a right so sacred It was a violation of the right because it destroyed impartiality impar-tiality It destroyed impartiality because be-cause it gave onehalf of the jurors to oneeighth of the population It is obvious to the most superficial observer that feelings run high iu the Territory There was before the bar of the Third District Court last week a case between a Mormon and a Gentile II in which the latter and his attorney made every effort to work upon the feelings of the non Mormon jurymen Such cases are always before the courts and have been and will continue to be largely determined de-termined by prejudice or by those considerations con-siderations which may come from honest hon-est differences of opinion upon facts brouJllt more or less Drorp1 htn rrUJ the case The minority may think it a splendid law it certainly is a convenient conveni-ent one for them It will probably be justified on the ground that Mormons are not lawabiding j but this is the reason rea-son that the British refused to try Colonists Col-onists by juries of the neighborhood and why they transported them to loyal communities or England for trial Is the case in any way different here The right of trial oy jury is en I croacncll upon in this Territory for a similar reason j because the preservation preserva-tion of the right would result in facer ot the majority And not only did the Poland law apply to civil cases but also to criminal cases and as a result a Mormon indicted for some act which appeals to class prejudice preju-dice stands before a jury comprising six of his natural opponents if indeed the panel has not been speedily exhausted ex-hausted and his inquisitors under the infamous practice of Utah Courts itself a mostglaring violation of the spirit of impartiality are not all Gentiles But the chapter of oppression and wrong was not complete when Poland passed his bill Now come the great Constitutional lawyers of the Senate and House with a measure which provides pro-vides that the President is to appoint the probate judges a In the natural course of events this means that every juryman jury-man in thfs Territory shall hereafter here-after be a Gentile that Mormons are to be immolated upon upon the altar of prejudice or decorated with the garland gar-land of favor < Gentile as jurymen in their moments of angeror compassion may elect The effects of such a system have been seen partially we have seen Gentile defendants freed by a Gentile jury when no doubt of their guilt was entertained except by the moral wrecks of the Tribune we have seen Mormon defendants upon the most trivial evidence and at seeming violation of law sent towe Penitentiary by a jury of their avowed enemies But these things are the very modesty of justice compared with the effrontery of prejudice and hate that will follow the Christian bill of 1837 Although composing fourfifths or more of the population owning the great bulk of the property and persecuted with even murderous rigor by many of their noncommunicants Mormons are to be denied the great right of trial by jury in alt at thatright means and ae to be turned over bound hand and foot for the castigation of thVr enemies In our opening paragraph we learned that the Colonists made four complaints com-plaints as to violation of Constitutional right Observe how literally these complaints com-plaints fit the case ox Utah The British justified themselves because they said the colonists were rebellious but they were not really so The Liberal and his dupes justify themselves because be-cause they say the Mormons are rebellious re-bellious but it is barely possible that they are not FirstThe Territories are taxed without with-out the consent of the peoples representatives repre-sentatives The entire country paid into the Treasury in 1833 300000000 taxes on imports and internal revenue to which the inhabitants of the Territories Terri-tories are liable equally with the inhabitants inhab-itants of the States The proportion of Utah was say SOOCOO on the basis of a population in the United States of 60 000000 and of 175000in Utahand this without a representative in Congress entitled to vote and therefore without representation in its accepted meaning SecondTroops are kept in this Territory Terri-tory we are expressly informed to overawe the people j certainly the presence of THE HERALDS genial neighbors neigh-bors is for that purpose if not why are they detached from a near post ThirdThe denial of the right of trial by jury has been discussed FourthExposing persons to seizure et on general warrants Witness that most alarming provision of the latest law tothe effect that the marshal and his deputies may arrest all offending against the law in their judgment without with-out a warrant of any kind and imprison im-prison or admit them to bail Has it not also been the custom in this Territory Ter-ritory to search Chouses without warrant war-rant If the people of the Territories are entitled to the constitutional rights of Americans is it not unquestionable that in these particulars their rights are invaded But the imperial government govern-ment claims or seems to claim exclusive ex-clusive and arbitrary powers |
