Show y THE DECISION r fa e devote considerable of the outside vt this issue 10 tho publication of the f all text of the decision of the united states supreme court delivered in the huns belsen habeas corpus case ve do on account of its importance and on account of the interest with which it ill be read by the people the question as to whether a man can be punished for unlawful cohabitation and for adultery under indictments covering the j same time and involving the same transaction is now forever settled the supreme court ruling that the double punishment inflicted by the utah court in this being was not merely an error in law but a denial of a constitutional right and that the court was wrong in refuting the writ of habeas corpus for the defendant applied when unlawfully convicted and imprisoned speaking upon this important decision the deseret new says As we have stated before there have been a great many indictments found under the dauble system which the su brome court of the united states de dares unconstitutional we may not have been technically and exactly correct in saying that a number of defend auts have been convicted and sentenced under similar circumstances to Sic lsen case in audgo judds court at we do not wish to do any one injustice the herron case parallels the eielsen case more close v than any other in that branch of the first uricial cial district 0 F herran ol 01 pleasant grove however served out his sentence for unlawful cohabitation and that fur adultery and so his case is beyond legal remedy at least to save him unlawful sentence there are other cases however in the ogden branch of the judicial dib tact and though the numerous cases of double indictment which have been held pending the decision in the cast were not exactly the same because the defendants had not been tried and sentenced yet they were identically the same in principle and if the decision had sustained the action of ane first district court the penitentiary would soon be crowded with persons in exactly similar conditions to those of nielsen and further if it had happened that habeas corpus was not die proper legal remedy or tta there had been no appeal from the unconstitutional tut ional ruling of alie lower courts these unfortunate defendants so indic cited wonlu have gone to the penitentiary as others have been sent not because they were guilty under the law but simply because there was no appeal to a court when full justice could be obtained un ler the constitution of the united states the eielsen case was made a test case and these numerous other cases of the same kind were held until the decision of the court of the united states could be had so far eo bood but was it not believed that the appeal would fail of being heard ami if mr attorney for the defendant had noi pre severed in pushing the matter up to the court of last resort and the rase had been left to the court below would there not now be scores of men placed in legal jeopardy unlawfully unjustly anil unconstitutionally the cases of peter barton wm H maughan and chas S hall each of them from the first judicial district but not sentenced by judge judd are the same ia principle as the case there is one feature of their cases however that leaves them open to legal controversy they each plead guilty to the indictment for adultery atler pleading cuilty to the indictment for unlawful cohabitation hans nielsen plead not guilty and hence the appeal but these men are now in the 1 dry under double indictments of the came kind as that which the court of last resort say is unlawful this is why we say they are alie samo in principle it is argued that as they plead guilty to two indictments there is no remedy in their basea this may be law v e very much doubt it though but it is not bood common eunse each of them believed that the indictment for the great cr offense was legal or lie would not have BO pleaded if it was illegal it was void and therefore the whole proceedings based upon it were void Is not that evident as a logical proposition but it will be said if these men were not guilty why did they plead guilty and seeing they are cuilty should they not he punished the answer is the highest court in the land says tho offense to which they plead guilty was included in the former offense w aich the acknowledged and therefore their second pica made in ignorance of the law should not work to their an lawful injury and why should they suffer for ignorance which they apparent ly with the learned judges on the benali and the learned prosecuting officers at the bar if the second prosecution prost cution was unlawful as the court above rules then imprisonment is unlawful in spite of their plea and admissions ow should any person be subject to unlawful imprisonment we hope this case will end the undignified and unrighteous efforts of judicial officers to exceed the law in excessive apal against one kind of offenses offen sea and one class of offenders lot the law be enforced as in oilier parts of the couii try is a sufficient demand for purposes and may wo nut oin the experiences have babeu iE heined ined that in future tho spirit as wo ag letter of thac rulings of the judicial tribunal of the land IQ re specter spec ted in court as muc at least nt out af court and that ve nence and malice will not again j ure 1 m official circles in this territory Terri torr by yay of chec utice or judicial er esses or in straining enactments beyond their legitimate i limits and intent |