Show TUB THE EMBRYO OF tile news of tuesday republishes its record of tho the first appe appearance aranco in in zanes anes idea ida of segregating indict merits for unlawful cohabitation the account ailion it first appeared appe irod on the evening of october oth 1835 1831 mada inada very viry interesting though not enjoyable read akk lay now that tile th attitude of 0 things with aith respect to our readers and this unique proceeding lias has undergone a somewhat BOma what agreeable change ivelina causo cause to believe that another portman of that name flame bit of court literature might ercito exal excl to no less lee of interest and certainly much more of pleasure the grand jury came cama into cour court t at 11 30 and presented ono one indictment under the laws of the tha united states mr alf mckay then arose anil state 1 that ali it there was v as a matter lie he dished A to bri ill to the attention ol of the court hichi had been die discussed discua cussed tied informally informal lv and otylior vise liae in in the grand jury room rom at leant one member of the grand brand jury claimed the lh I 1 likht ight to bay whether lie should elion lil lind find an indictment or not lint when at the alio kama time lie he admitted the evidence to warrant it claiming that it would bo be a usurpation on the part of the gran grand d jury to find an indictment under certain lituin circumstances notwithstanding the ev m donee bonce warranted it mr mckae then stated tho the objection was in rel ailon to anding more than one indictment for unlawful cohabitation in in it i certain period the juror referred to said lie would do don no such thing in agite to of being reminded that ilia hia oath required it under the instructions of tile court under the circumstances mr cikay thought the abo juror incompetent the court asked for ilia hia namo name and mr air clayton was named as tile juror mr clayton said yes yo lie ha was tile ono one find and desired to correct mr mckay in ili one particular nilar that ile ho hall not refused to indict diet aher the ev evidence warranted warrant td it that lie ho hid had voted tid for indictment in in that hist case mr cikay stated that the alie point lie iio 0 i made war vw that tho the juror refused to fand more inore thin than one indictment rile juror assumed to bay whether the law wah M cori or laid down by the court or not jl it was not disputed that the krand juror had a richt to siy say ll whether hether ilia evi evident 0 was sufficient or the llie grand juror claimed that even cv en wile where ro tile tho evi danco was liras clent tile tho Ill finding iding of more than ono one indictment was as unconstitutional that the alio taw law of 1862 fixed the maximi maximum tnt punishment for polygamy and tile ed 1 d rounds law allowed it to bo 1 the he intention of congress Conre aa to lix fix the utmost pu punish niall anent for unlawful cohabitation which ito ho termed formed the jumai ofie ui renso nse at six months imprisonment find and JOO 00 ino fille arid to find two or 01 more indi indictments against a man lie might bo be to even a greater ere iter extent than for polygamy sir 34 mckay stated further that there thorn wait waa another juror lie asked to leavo lave taken oil off tor for substantially the same baino re roi 1 mr ir jacob bl mont oritz and lie iio was vas informed that thero there were v cro others mr it davis state stancl 1 that in certain cases lie iio had tile same barna opinion as ai mr air montz mr clayton was interrogated by tile court t and said B nd lie iio believed it v was w ancon to find more thin than one indictment the ilia constitution provides pro idea that excessive excessive fines or al 1 l punishment shall not be frn imposed posed ile he said lie ho did vote for indictment where the ilia evidence warranted it but to go back and find an indictment for far every lay day or week ho he would not do it Not willi with standing tanemi tand mi the evidence showed that do fondant bad been living lit in unlawful cohabitation for three yea years r s lie ho would find but ono one indictment he I 1 lad hid advised with no one talked alvith no one except perhaps hn his flito mr moritz montz and mr air DIMS davis thought that where parti oj hid had been on indicted indu tod tried and convicted those p parties arts ought to have a chance after they came out then it they didat livo live athin wi tile the law they were ready to indict them tile court then interrogated each of the other jurors as to v vv hether lie iio took 1 olt the sam bame position po but they all respond ed in tit the negative court mr monti mr Davi annl sand mr clayton ton I 1 am surprised gentlemen that thal alter after you took tile llie oath yon did that you would investigate and inquire into all tile matters that were v ore brought before you arid and whenever the evidence eviden ct was you would fled the truth and nothing but tile the truth that you yoi would not bo be influenced by bv fear favor or aal by any ally rewa luar baor doi promise ur ar haiie cupo thereof but lit in fill all your present merits a ou if would prescript pres crit ilia truth tile whole truth und but the truth that you v vall ill state vou A fiill ill not do it cliton clayton I 1 huo lave stated that I 1 would and did no BO court tho effect of your statement state mentia is to that clayton Clay lonI I dont understand it that way Court mau Mail must be ba careful when they take laka oaths wa aad no wo take a vote on it Court But you hue have no ito right light to lo late bills you would not do it you cannot trifle w walh ill your consciences conscience liko that lu ILI this court it 1 14 l aston lhing that men hav bave e not mora inore regard for their falln I than t ha t where the evidence Is yon have no DO discretion whatever if it ilia is to lo you must it li it la Is not sat our dolent you cannot indict you oil bole no DO more mora discretion thin than this if court lidi hai when loft lo 10 it it II the evl evi dauca denea la Is one way the ilia court under its it 0 oath a ill can not flud and another nol hor if a case to raft d to the tb courtie Court Cour tIt if the evidence ii 14 with be plain eilf it cannot find the ilia iscis the other wa v yn so with a grand jury you have not the llie slightest discretion you move dl di erectly accord ing to your slid had flod the ibe truth accordini according to tile llie a you yo I 1 ave no right ie say ity you will rot millet indle t bhough the evidence may ta lu Bull Munt you have no right to lo may hay law la is aunean or wrong alter the alio court courte barges you that it is the law it 1 Is tho duty duly or the iho court to charge yott what thi law li 14 with respect to your datlow aa birnel grina J jur ur or on and bi bai so charged you Gentl ernen y it are excused ili BI unworthy oto ot ill i a it a boand granil jury next limo you route roma beloro balor 0 I 1 fihs ihs he court anil and ai 89 in it beio et 0 in this cabet cue is aa inia tier of 0 thu the grand jury answer frankly and if you go on the grand jury you einum be go arned U r oth MI Ii oritz mr you may retire you urn are from roia this grandeury gran grind jury djury ehl abla 3 afternoon mr me toky mode miili an ir r gurment in support or tile proportion lint the court ourt had bad powei to ID till rill it clr lacni ill a can la abe grabil airy nry biln read from the th e decision of tha court in the clawson case tile higA lity 0 of f the owa venire in ill R petit lury and nd conte dod thai it was within the PO power a 0 the ibe court to adopt ilott the lb open V entre course in the at ali close of bit bid mckay moved chatau open venire lisue and the court C bou t ordered that thai it 11 lia be for six nix names and ad this wili wi followed fallu ed uj ila the names namoa OU on the jury list wem upon the rotor return ot of the open air i 1 13 T caabay and nd A uquhardt wr are selected telco led to nil all up tho the grud iury wj |