| OCR Text |
Show HEIU'CTIO AD ABSURD I'M. Silt Lake City, Feb. 1, 79. Editors EcralJ: The full text of the decisioo of tbe Supreme court o.' ttie United States io i!;e R-ynolda otee ha?iic been ojade puMic, you will prhapa excuse me f x tnkiijg the tiacia up for a few rainuteB today. Pussibly in various placea there are admiring Jack Buqs-bys Buqs-bys who enthusiastically prooouuee it a deci-ioo as id a decision. I have no duubl the learned yenllemeD comp ialog the court thiuk the de-ciaioa de-ciaioa a very wise one But if so Uu ruble aLd obecurd a peison as I may be allowid to differ from 80 dignified dig-nified and augurit a body, I Bhould give my opinion in the phrase, Iltdtictio ad ubaxtrdum. Let rue go back a little. Time wap when the Supreme court of the United Sutefl was looked up to a? the modi patriotic body iu the Union. Not by any mean io the sense of the Barcastic remark tbat patriotism ie the last refuge of a scoundrel, but in the seuae that the court named wae an incorruptible eipouuder of constitutional con-stitutional principles, an impreg noble bulwark agaiust unconstitutional unconsti-tutional encroachment, ioeensible to popular prejudice and inUextble to popular pressure. It was generally and firmly believed that the high court ot judicature was the one unfailing un-failing balance wheel of tbe Union, correcting, with Bteady and certain action, the vagaries and eccentricities of all the other parti. It was held, wilh a fond and e acred and confident and flattering unction, that the court ot last resort moved in an untainted atmosphere and was a body that, of all bodis, wculd never give up to party what was meant for mankind. But all things human ara weak and fallible, and ages ago it was authoritatively authori-tatively and truthfully said: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and miketb flesh his arm." Time has proved that the highest court in this great republic is fallible, is beael with common human weaknesses, and is cot able invariably to set principle before prejudice, nor to exalt the former above the latter, as always should be done. About two years ago, the safety of the Union appeared to hang upon a very Blender thread, and tbat thread was n Biogle vote in the electoral college. col-lege. Toe momentous question was, which of the two great political parties was entitled to the casting vote that would decide the political complexion of tbe lederal government for the succeeding four years. The democrats were sure they were entitled to that vote. The republicans re-publicans were equally sure they' were entitled to it. So it was mutu-! ally ngreed that a tripaitite commission, commis-sion, competed ot five members each of the senate, the house, and the Supreme court of the United States. Bhould decide the knotty question. Ot, this commission, eight were republicans re-publicans iind seven were democrats. This famous eight to seven com m is I Bion decided the question by a strictly party vote, and therefore not by the, evidence adduced. As a matter of course, tbe republicans got the election elec-tion and the presidential chair. The decision might have been essentially right, or it might have been essentially essen-tially wrong, hut the (act that it was a thing of parly acd not of principle whs the degrading factor in the result re-sult oi tbe commission, and this degradation was largely abated by tbe ! Supreme court, that being tho only j one of the three houorable bcd.es which bad a majority of its members sitting oo the commission. The totia of the commissioners were exactly ex-actly identical with the votes pre-vioutly pre-vioutly given on Ihe qnf-stion by the lowiat put-boutse politicians in tbe country. T here was nothing dis-gmci-lui in lnid, but there waB (something (some-thing veiy biicpieioii:, a eomcthing wlucu involved the integrity, iho probity, pro-bity, ibe liigli-'uindedness, the principle prin-ciple of the corumissionera. The disgrace dis-grace was in tho fact that tho decision of the cuiumis-iun and ibe previous dcLidiuija ot ttie pot house politician were cqu.vlly arrived at by exactly the same methed, and that method ran in this way: l'uihou&e demccrat "The republicans repub-licans hie voted early and olten hie and therefore tho democrats hie have the right to tbe majority vote." Prjt-ho'jsa republican "Tho dom-ocraifl dom-ocraifl hie voted early and often hie nud therefore the republicans hie have the right to the mojority vuU1." Tripaitite commission democrat "The evidence is overwhelming that there was much bribery, intimidation and illegal voting practised by the republican;?, and therefore the democrats demo-crats uro undoubtedly entitled to the ruhjoiiiy iri the electoral cjllege." Trirrulitt) crmmisaion republican "The evidence is ovt-rwb timing tbat thtrc was much bribery, intimidation, and illegal Toting amog Iho democrat, demo-crat, and therefore the republican ar ido-ubtedly entitled to the mi -., . . in the el?rt',ral college." i iu:sf qucmiy my opinion ot Ibis tripartite comtnissiou business m:iy bo thin expressed Ji-.duclio ml absttrduni. Now, the Supremo court decision in the Reynolds ca?e was of a greatly I similar nature to the eight to seven commission decision in the presidential presi-dential election case, though I may remark, in pissing, that there were two paities in the commission, while the Supreme court, like Bridgenorlh election, was all on one side, excepting except-ing on ono point, a point, however, not involving politics or prejudice. The decision of the court of last resort in this Reynolds case waa exactly identical whb the decisions previously given on the same case by tbe lowest pothouse politicians in tbe country, and was reached by exactly the same mrtb.rxl, in this way Pothouse auti-Slormon "That Reynolds hie ought to go to j iil 1 hie aril 1 am gi.id the judge bic ' avu him tnrre years. Two wive hie I can't k-ep one A man who nmrrie.-1 two wes hie ought to bo burg " Supreme court n nli-Mormon " Ynh i qnal plausibility a man mihl e'nim. uii!(T the constitution, immunity im-munity in the tr.iciice of rtlii ins Th:ift nr religious eu'tee. I am sAtUtbd that ro error was commiitid by tbe court beiow. and the judgment is cvnu;ueniiy a farmed. '' Thus u;e I oozy pu:hou;e juJge slJ the leartud Supreme court jurls-both jurls-both dfc.dfd the case Iteltire them,' not according to principle, but according to prejudice. Tne Supreme ; court judge decided every point, eome on vTy inFubpUntal grounds, agaiosi tbe dtiemlant, i-ueliuiug the cbal-Icngfs cbal-Icngfs of wuucsFM!) by Hie prosecutiOD and nveriuling tnode by the defense, just as the cuurt below did, and just -s the pothnu-e "Mormon"-eater aid. To all which 1 bve eimp'y to any, lieductio ad ttbsurdum. The chief justice, sustained by all the otner juiicea but ene, quoted .tulboriiifcs and endeavored to prove trim ttie l.i wer court waa perfectly juaufied in admitting the testimooy o: the witness ScliofiiJ, given in the first trial, under a ddlVrent iudict-meut, iudict-meut, to used in the second trial. Mr. Justice Field, to quote his own words, Bys of the testimony of the witness named, "Tne autboritiea ciua by the chief justice to sustain its admissibility seem to nie to ectahlisb i conclusively the ex ict reverse." Now ; tnat muat be & very peculiar and dubious line of rcdsoning tbat should lead one learned judge to conclude that it inconleislibly established one point, and another and similarly learned judge to cono'ude that it in eouti-siiMy demolished ih.it point. I should be inclined iu t'liuk, in such a c B, reductio ad abstirdum. It appears that in cerium contiu gericien the evidtuee of a witness given iu one trial may be uaed, in tbe absence of the witness, in a second trial. In law this may be justifiable in some extreme caBea. Yet it is one of those judicial resorts wuicb are not without their dc nger, and consequently conse-quently must not he pushed too far, tor this resort, when carried to its ultimates, plays havoc and wrecks everything. But I am not discussing this matter in a legal aspect. Tbe courts have settled all tbat. I om speaking ot the point in its logical and moral aspect, and in regard to the ultimate lengths to which it might be carried, in some such way aa this: Tbe witness Scbofield, being absent, eupposediy, and euppO'edly only, by connivance of tbe delendant, i her testimooy for the profiscuiioo, given in a former trial, was admitted, on this dubious ground, in the second trial. Very wsll. If tbe presence of one witness is not absolutely necssBary ia a second trial, the presence ef another witness is do', jjd the former for-mer testimony of both can be read and accepted. If the preseuco of two of the witnesses is -not nece;sary, iho presence ot none of the witnefEes is necessary, but tbe previous testimony cf all of them may bB read and bo admitted by the court, in the second trial. This is perfectly logical, but it is not far from reductio ad absurdum. ! Let ci go a itep further. It there are no new witnesses to be brought forward in the Becond trial, what ia the use of having any lawyers present, on the part of either the prosecution j or the defense? There are no witnesses to be examined. The examination and tbe cross examination and the speeehoB of the attorneys pro and con at tbe former trial may be read at the second trial, as with the evidence of the witnesses, such excisions being made by tbe clerk as the writ of error requires. In the first of these two Reynolds trials by tho lower court, the indictment was fouvd by an illegal ille-gal grand jury, which consequently was no grand jury at &l,r and the trial on that indictment was no trial at all. Belore a second, or rather real, trial could be instituted, a legal grand jury had to return an indictment indict-ment against him, similar to the first or illegal indictment. ThuB Ihe grand jury waa a necessity preparatory to tbe second trial. But, following the reasoning of the Supreme court, the clerk of the court was the only other oflicer of the court, or appendiigo to it, thai waa really necessary in the second trial, afur tbe grand jury bad presented the indictment. II the pretence of the witnesses and of the lawyers was not necessary, as I have shown, then we my analogously conc'ude that the presence ot the learned judge and of the prosecutor was not necessary, as Ihe clerk could have read their speeches, rulings, charge, eeutenee, etc., leaving out sucu parts, if any, aa tho writ of error directed. Further, if Ihe defendant ne(d not have been confronted by iho witutsrea, there need have been no dM'endaut in court. 'The clerk could have read his plea ot Qtiilty or not ptrl'y, aa given in tho former trial, and the whole busint as of the second trial could have been conducted vicari. u-ly, tbe clerk ot the c-$uil being be-ing the proxy for all, the rand jury exceptt tl, as before Blattti. W bat, could the petit jury have been done without? Yes, just as well as the wit-ncftts. wit-ncftts. One was no more neces-tary neces-tary than tho other. Tho jury in the firril trial, lSEte&d of returning i rimple verdict of guilty or not guilty, could have elaborated a little on the testimony and the facts, and the points uf law, nnJ have said guilty as to so tad so, and not guilty as to eo and so. Tho cleric could have limi-H&ud limi-H&ud from such an explanatory verdict ver-dict the parts coiered by the writ ol error, and reiv.l the remainder of tha vtrdict, whether it amountd toguilly or not guilty. This vto-iid ba a very econotsicM plan, saving nrjst of the tinifl and expem;! usual in c-'Coml Iri-il, and moreover would be in logical logi-cal keeping with the ruling of tuo Supreme court id the matter of ah sencr. But :L may be askrd, "Would rut the di-leudant thus be denied the constitutional con-stitutional right to be confronted with tho witness es against him?'' Cer tainly. hut if he cm bi denied that right in the ca;e of one witue.-s, why uo in the cane oi two witnesses, and why r.ot in the. cieo of all the wit-ncu? wit-ncu? "Wi;nld not Fuch absence amount to no tri;! at all ? ' Certainly, hut it is tho logical ultimate outcome of the ruling excusing the absence of one wituess. "ibe tirt-t trial having been reversed or annulled, or made void, and having been conducted under an illegal indictment, amounted to no trial at ail." Exactly so. "Tnen ! both the trials togetherwouid amount to no trial at all ?" Just so, and therefore tbe best tiling to say about it would be, reductio ad absurdum. Sigo. |
