OCR Text |
Show Bs I MOKE "LIBUUL" LOKIC. Bfff n WeduesJay Judge Zane, in Bffif answer to a question put for the HSI ' ,,cncm of the gran J Jury, repeated BB : the latest definition or the term un- KJ lful cohabitation. It was mb- Irl 111 siamially as defined by the Supreme Baffl tjBart r ,,,e United States. The Bggf "Liberal" oran tbU morning says HB1 U"1 JuJse Zana explained as ft!- BHflj lows: RSfaf k rbatltW3,no:neee3ry to prove HBjH ' the act or cohabitation, or that ther B$if if t-" occupied the samaapirtment." kG It " Tnat ls to sy, to convict or the Kf , toffence ofunUwful cohabitation it gffSlif - h not necessary to prove unlawful P ''if! -cohabitation. Tills Is 7huie loIc, i ' pure and elmple, and Uie kind ot M , anJ justice which it upholds In -lijf ' reference to accused "Mormons." 9Hlf f There is no need to provo the M offence; all that is necessary is to ffI P make the charge, have a jury ready k?4 composed cf persons prejudiced jJ ! against "Mormons" In general, and f- , make the defendant prove his innocence inno-cence or find him guilty. - The offense created in this Terri-1 fV ' Itcry by the Edmunds Act has bad a great many definitions and explanations, expla-nations, and the changes have been rung upon It until defendants, the bar and tho public have been dazed as to its legal meaning. But however how-ever near to the joint of absurdity some of these explanations have gone, they have not stepped over the line of common senc to the extent of the utter imbecility exhibited In this new specimen of Tribune logic |