OCR Text |
Show THE DISTINCTION AND THE DIFFERENCE. Wo havu nut tiie smallest dcoire tbU, morning to animadvert on ilio Third District Court, its Judjre and prosecuting prosecut-ing Attorney; thr :i!l wlio arc aware of the proceeding in the court room on Monday and yesterday, and have any lovo lor their country remaining, ean but fuel deeply grieved that Midi an exhibition of bigotry, fanaticism, warped-judgment and direet animu.i filiould ever have been jjcen in a t'nited States court. lid'uro the self-appointed reliiuu.i-CL-n.-i.jr on Monday not through catechizing Mr. Caiman, he n.ked the question wo quote iVom lu.it evening's jSeia: "Do y.,u believe that a man, ' 111 "larryiiiL,' more than one wile, coiu- adultery 7" The answer was; "L do not, it' he marries them according accord-ing to the revelation." This the ' . Judo held wan hulheicnt to. prevent ; Mr. Cannon from serving on the grand jury, as it was the intention of that grand jury to indict a mau, if pu&iiblo, for adultery who was;. a polygamist; nnd ho, thcJudgo, had decided Uforr the cast: cumr ifore him for trial that the man was guilty of adultery ! IVterday morning Aurcliud Miner, Ksq., Attoriiey-at-iaw, proposed the following question, to one of the crand jury: 'Do you entertain such conscientious consci-entious opinions upon the subject of sexual intercourse, as would impel you to indict for the crime of fornication or adultery, any person who should be proved to have indulged in such intercourse inter-course with any other person than his or her lawful spouse?" The prosecuting prose-cuting Attorney was prompt in objecting object-ing to it was it touching too close? And tho Judge called it "captious," yet permitted its being asked, while Haying in a fractious manner he was wrong to allow it to be acd. If wrong, why did ho do it? Where was tho wrong, if the question asked on Mouday, apart from tho religious censorship, could be sustained? liut after permitting the question to be asked, ho virtually prevented it by finding limit, judicially, with Mr. Miner, and refusing that gentleman tho right of rising to a personal explanation. Tho plain fact is, it is not adultery nor illicit sexual intercourse that is objectionable; ob-jectionable; the objeut is to show that Mormons cannot sit on juries nor enjoy the rights of citizenship. And after having uttered protestations of making mak-ing "no distinction as between citizens" citi-zens" tho patiece, forbearance and law-abiding disposition of the Mormons, Mor-mons, have compelled these functionaries functiona-ries to throw off still more of the dis-guiso dis-guiso in which they were enwrapped; and which will bo completely cast aside when they avow themselves openly in favor of proscriptive measures, edicts ofoutlawery, general confiscation and the military let loose to kill and destroy every man, woman and child that holds tho Mormon faith. They may attempt to hide or gloss it over as they please, this is the hidden sentiment which animates tho more fanatical portion por-tion ofthe "ring," and they hug to their breasts in secret the hope of one day working their will with Mormon property and Mormon wives and daughters. Let the groat American people keep eyes on these small disciples of Alva. |