Show SA saum salm r lare lake CITY ff mafi march ch 0 git ait ali 1974 1874 editor metes neles I 1 sir at the close clo cio of my moy letter ol of tie tio tle the loth lust I 1 rorer ferer referred rell reli to tho date of our jury law which bijan iljan was jan 21 1859 and to the date ofa of our ur law defining ithe qualifications of jurors ju rori rort which WAS approved on the aine arpe f damo davo L did this por for the tho reason leason that much adois made over it in that it does ilot not ay they ald aid in e executing xe the polygamy ael acl ofton gresh gresa greb gres s which wai wis approved july ee 12 Statues at large larg p 51 11 1 1 three years and about libb vb months atter after the jury law wa was sap approved thus you s so eert ic could not have hie hae been in tho i minds pill N of ou oun our leisla legislators 7 tors to defeat a t ruch such sueh buch an abt of C Cong 0 tho the adv adt of ar congress congre not afi in existence astei rice lice edery every stcl aeck has bas a gause gauge and in turn stirn the ia ff ct cf bce apts V sor aether jt agel feci by rt to my jetter letter dated nov NON printed in the salt lake jake her d it idi vill 11 he be perceived thau thad thiis then ald ald aid 1 I when the U P S army il vla wt ila a at fort it bridger one hundred u nilea iles lles from frona this city in 1857 a grand jury was called in the orpy py taken chell froni the arny army a ay irmy followers as it was said T tit at grand ju jury ry indicted several men in sait salt lake city whether a venire issued or not I 1 do riot rooi noi enow but if jt it did etwas it was issued to the U S marshal and the jurors were by him selected as 1 I in lii lily i liy my former letters said was the tho practice under til utah law iava and th crimes in these cases were of lences against the united states this thi no doubt was the cause of the passage of our jury law and of our law jaw denning defining the qualifications or of jurors the fact thab that soine foide of th the new cv settlers want w at the law jaw C cl I 1 fanged e to IQ meet act theat their views only show shows what hat hab may ay be anticipated if the I 1 law be gehan changed c d this is greatly strengthened b by wb what at took fook place jace jn n the L englebrecht a and aud ud case easo co which as I 1 stated lil in my ietter letter to the ve orta orla of nov 1 3 isly 1873 that G 62 jurors were selected and 58 of these th ese were new settlers were at alfy of us iti id the States would mould they change tho the tury jury ury lancto law to give us an opportunity to servo serve oh juries AT ap awe nwe we to blame for wish wishing ing to heep the in theli thell the hands ands of those to whom it rightfully light fully belongs boglian both in theory andin and in practice but nut crime goe si islik in mhli mall vve ave ve Y 1 they sald said i ld sd so in abol when I 1 first arrive arrived dl in n the e territory ry naf and f fouled no valid law had heen neen passed ri the subject of after tile patsie passage g of the organic law until a very time before I 1 held heid my first court and tor di this among othet reasons I 1 held heid that a person indicted lu in the fictile name of tho the united states for ah alleged crime committed in this T territory 7 against must its laws lass could apt be e judicially punished lidd I 1 entertained ined the sa same lm i views then which I 1 now nowen nowen eu bertain ter tain I 1 respectfully beg leave to submit to you fon for publication the copy empy of a letter which I 1 then wrote to the hon jelin ivl iii berli hisel then delegate de in coti Coli congress gress from this Teril terii territory tory omitting a few matters not having any reference to th tin s sab subject jeet deet it is as follows gru gnu GREAT SALT lare LAKE CITY utah july 1 gon won jr at M T 0 L A dear tr siki your letter to me mec dated april 9 referring to an extract of in my y letter to you dated feb 28 came to lia ila hana hand bythe bytho last mail mall 1 I have also aiso received receive ea the 06 extract referred refe ired to and a publication k K it W V 1 1 I l dp not feel called upon by any sense bense of duty duly 1 lowe towe owe to myself to tn answer sueh such uch communications as ay that or ofir fr and of ir fr and alid tile the writer atil to 0 tile the sint saint louis to 10 which mt mr L referred nor ai lother another supposed tobe to be v ritten by mr relating to my m religious s which aich my iny friends ill iii in the state of ohio have sent nia me bilt but if my statements will ivin benefit others I 1 am willing to make them and when madel madei am willina willing t trev ties 1 ey sli sil should olied be 66 pil published bl dished in one of your letters to a gentleman in this city you you say some i 1 expectable members hrs his of df congress congro s have tai taken ell eli exception 6 tomy my charge to the j jury u ry in it the case cabe case ease of I 1 do not isnow how many there are nor how well read in the tile law these lo members may br bo nor do I 1 know what errors if any they are able to see but as this comes from droin a source that commands respect on my part it may not be amiss to write you a line on the subject J e ct the newspaper reports lead to the belief that I 1 laid down a doctrine not correct they ahey make me say what I 1 did not say pay the case so far a my chargo charge is concerned is reported in 3 u the tile Dr deseret simma NEWS nr vs issued nov 15 1851 I 1 cannot not but express my surprise that any member of Congress ae learned arned in law lawf should dafler differ with me rne in the tho legal conclusion ethere laid down is as tile the case eafe cao then stood the idea conveyed convened by the tho papers that have havo come mider under my observation is this that I 1 held that tho tile territorial riat court courts had llad jull juli dic tion tiu tin to punish purll pulli sli sll criminals for primes committed beyond the tho or tile territory bufu bute no lio jurisdiction to punish to tor r crimes com eom committed within it 3 now eow ow if this tin be thu the objection of these members of congro congress s I 1 must certainly be bevo beve believe ve thay elther either elti eitt er never lead the report or read lead if dt very inattentively no uch ildea videa a is espres expressed ed nor anything from w which h ich ech mch a conclusion wile wilc lusion could be I 1 drawn it is to be remembered tha etive were iver sitting as a united states court and not a aa a nial rial court the had been presented by a gia brinl 1 fid jury called on oil behalf of iho tho he unita united udita states and the prosecution was carried on in tile tiie name namo antl anci by the authority of the united states let me inquire have the United States courts authority or jurls juris action tu to punish for crimes arimes committed in a state within the body of a county and against the laws of the state or roust the state courts do it if rif an indictment should be pt presented sen seu ted by a gran grand d j jury u ry called to at at tend a united states court for murder committed in a dockyard over which the united states have havo the sole ana and exclusive jurisdiction and it turned out in evidence that it might have been committed in the body of a county in the jurisdiction dic tion of a state what would the judge of the united li States slates court sa ay would lie he not charge the jury that if they found the crime to ha have nave beeri been committed in the body of a county the verdict must be not guilty hut if it was an the dockyard then the verd verdict A be guilty the tale question of fact to be decided by the jur on the tile contrary is ifs if an indictment should bp bo presented arl ari in a state stale court for fon or murder CommiL committed ted in the body ofa of ft county in pr near which there was an AH extent 6 of country ceded to the united states for aque s jibe national purpose and it turned out in evidenced evidence that it might have havid been committed within the county ceded to the united states what would the state j audgo judge say sas sa would hould would he not change charge tile the jury that if f the crime dimo was committed in in the body of the county the verdict mut must be guilty but if c committed bitted in lil the country ceded to t the ir t eunit united ed states then it should be not guilty and le doie leave the question of fact to be decided dele dole by the jury jur in that way wi ay each court would i keep within its is own jurisdiction n I 1 but though these ar are aro 0 am among ong the plainest propositions arising arlo ario 1 in out or of the ru relations lations which th tho the 0 united states and arad the sev several cral enal enat states bear to each other yet thew they are not literally correct in relation to the territorial courts the only difference however is this the territorial courts possess a tar more complex jurisdiction than either tile the united states circuit L and district courts or the state slate court courto courts they in truth possess both but does this state of the law lavy in re regard ard to tile the territorial riat courts c change llauge 0 the principle of the up posed cases above aboe mentioned 1 I do 10 not does I 1 held in the murder case ense that when the territorial judges sit as national I 1 courts they have the same jurisdiction in cases arising out of the constitution and laws of the united sta states besas as the circuit and district courts court of the united state Stat eQ and must look to the laws of the united stame stamm not to the territorial law a vvs for their au to pul pui puni punish lisi sl and as we G were then sitting as a national court and the prosecution being in tile the name and by lly the authority of the united 8 state tate Q the defendant wag was entitled to a verdict of not guilty unless it app appeared pared cared affirmatively firmat ively that the erime crime was committed in a country over which tile the united states had the aole eole and exclusive ci jurisdiction if IC a crime against the tim united states be lie committed in a district or circuit of the united states the bi Tender offender must bo be tried by the iti Ill district strict or clr cir cult court ittig sitting in such Al strict district or circuit but there are a class of crimes that may or must from their very nature be committed out of a circuit or district in this class off af cases cafes tho the labas law has wisely provided that the circuit or ne district courts according to the lla lia na ita ture of the crime into wirch OW oie accused shall be fint first brought or found shall shail have bave 6 of the tho case cae I 1 eliere ITher els eis is a large extent of copil country I 1 between this territory arld and arid the adis missouri ouri river biver over which the criminal law jaw otho utho af pf audited stater stated Et St ate ater K w far ai applicable ible lias has been extended and yet this tills linot ihnot i not hia hla in a cirt cult euit or district of the tho united states 81 tes houll hould a t crime rhile be committed in that country the court authorized ly 11 y lav lay indest murt try the 41 lender provided it geathe jur sdi adi drici of the tile per person oil oli in tile 06 murd muro rasel razel as I held heid that chat if tile the crime was co malit ted there the tili verdi verdict I 1 ct sh sli uld be guilty had however the verdict been guilty under finden that rii cil in other very import important and ani and far iyub ili iii U e d I 1 1 eil eli uit alt I 1 t question Li estion might have hive arisen I 1 ic might and probably would have hayo been made a question whether th the united states courts court in utah had jurisdiction of bf the case or whether by the and lind ath sections of the actor act of congress chapter approved june roth 1834 regulating trade with the he indian tribes it would hayot hayet have havo beell jeen our duty to desmit dismiss s the tile case mid and seni the accused to ther thor state of missouri or arkansas to bg be tiled tried but this question was not raised and therefore ewas was not hinted by me it is more than probable that the newspaper leports reports re orui which havo have come to my my notice ird are kim him result of af bad faith or very gross ignorance af pf the law it I 1 is niso aiso probable that they originated with the ret returning meers officers omm off to aid them iii in many of their assertions relating to crimes going unpunished here it was well known to these officers that there had not been any criminal eoda code passed ed they the y left exee exec except one with only afew a few pew profir after the organic act took C benn benl albet act and before they had 0 organized r under it the effect ii law of the acts passed by tile tiie state 81 ate of deseret P organic act took effle effect ct cind aind nd of those pus passed e d afterwards and before organizing unda it was occasionally ahe the suh sub jentof conversation among us jis J 1 I had indicated 0 o q them theril that P acts passed pissed after the tile organic acl act took effect and before organizing under it might require re in an act passed by a legal legislative 1 assembly Asseri ihl ibl de declaring clarin such ats acts to be va valid id and legal G in this cas caf caaso s 0 far at I 1 least east os a these acts related t to oc rimes crimes they would be valid from the approval al of the tho declaratory act nuil anil bot dot not from the tile date of these aca A V as thus legalized tho the mic camo for which was waa indicted was committed antei annei the organic act took effect ef livet and abid beffre the legislative assembly had bad been called together under anderm ib th the result sult of which was yas the criminal code passed after the abt act took effect had not at the th Q commission of the crime been legalized andun andul kl 4 s English the criminal I 1 law IV with its someone some one hundred and 11 fifty death penalties trans traus transportation potation mtv 9 fc as it existed at the fhe declaration of independence was in force here heie mr could io iocim dot not tIm tin in the name nami and nud bythe bytho by the authority of the tho terni terri utah be judicially punished the people of the unbind united states and of this territory i would have had j just cause of c complaint 0 malain t against me had It knowingly without the authority of law used my judicial station to fu try convict and punish mr air even though he be might have taken the ilfe life of an innocent and antl meritorious 1 t having baving noticed the fiet fact that in the winter of 1850 1830 1 after this i territory was created the legislature of tile the state of dedret met and passed parsed sundry acts among which was a criminal code ought perhaps to assign a why they did not meet under theor the organic act as ahl by law they thes might have done this took place before my arrival I 1 ani enton euton ent cut oil others for tho neason reason but I 1 havo hayo been inform informed eti eel and I 1 believe correctly too that they did not get any official information of the tile provisions of the act until february bior any news about the tho creating of the territory u until gitil tile the latter part of dec december ember Q bo be correct it is a reasonable ex excuse etise in conclusion almust say I 1 am well weli satisfied with the effect produced lucea by tile the trial of mr and the then expressed also with the effect of tile views espre expressed sied in another case eme tried before me last winter when the doctrine here indicated was considered since sincer then the legislative LF assembly has passed a zi very good criminal code t yours Y truly Z NOW |