Show A FEW JUDICIAL FALLACIES WE publish in another column the charge of chief justice john A hunter to the grand jury in relation to polygamy and also to the cases of mob violence which occurred recently in this city and in park city we have nothing to bay say about the latter except that thac we consider his honor was perfectly right in directing special attention to these violations violit ions lons of law and order but wo we haye laye some reflections reflect iona lons to offer oner concerning a few of the judges remarks concerning polygamy his honor concedes the right of the people of this territory to their belief on that subject and that the state has no night right or power to provide by the usual mode of legislation or the suppression of that belief but alleges ehat that the right of con gress gresa to provide for the punishment of those who carry that belief into practices bis bib not nna cannot be adueh tion 11 we ate ot of the opinion that it both can be and is a avery very serious question questions about which there is a 8 wide difference of opinion it Is ia true that the tile supreme court of the stated has ruled in favor of that cigut rig tir tit and as a technical legal pro position that may be considered the end of controversy but judge hunter does not confine hib his reasoning to simple coln points to of jaw he be takes up the subject on broader grounds and it is here that we VO I 1 loin oln oin issue with him and tako talo the position that the right ot of congress to legislate directly for ton an organized territory with a legislature of its own baving authority over oter all tight tul tui of legislation has to bo be assumed and cannot be proven congress derives all its powers from the constitution sti ution and there Is not a line in that lust t ament which except by a forced construction doing violence to other parts can be cited as authority for such direct interference with the right tight ot of local belt beit government and supposing that this question is decided adversely to our view views because of usage and long exercise of this assumed authority it does not follow that congress has haa power to enact laws jaws prohibiting the free exercise of that religion belief in which the judge admits to be an unas sati sail I 1 able right ahe the decision of the supreme court may be lle again cited to te settle this point but we have the right to dissent from that opinion and to show if we can its fallacy from its own reasoning and equally we bavo havo the right ts expose the weakness wo akness of juige jui jai a guntert hunters le argument based on similar grounds we do this as a citizen and a journalist journalists and because his ahnor has gone beyond the strict line of legal logic and entered the field of polemics on the bare proposition that an law is on the statute books of the nation and that it has hab been sustained by the highest court ot of the land lands and thel etore etoie it to is the duty of the grand jury to inquire into infractions of that law we could have no dispute with the judge but it is on his and reason ings outside or of that proposition that we claim the night nigh t to dispute his conclusion judge hunter beatea that roer roar certain actuate act acx sare sate are axe by statutes enacted by the legislators who aze are the delegates of the to be ba crimes ss 11 11 and proceeds to argue for the punishment of plural marriage on the ground that the antl anti polygamy laws were so BO passed this is incorrect to begin with those statutes were enacted for the government of an organized organ izad political body of people who had no BO voice in the passage therdo thereof the tho peo people a who elected the delegates or congressmen that passed the laws lawa in question are not affected thereby those enactments are directed solely against a community maul ty who thad had no voice directly or indirectly in the passage thereof I 1 A fundamental fand fund principle of our system of government is in this instance ruthlessly bet set aside and the bottom of the judges argument is non es est then he attempts to makela make f a comparison between the statutes against plural marriage and against stealing and to draw a par albel betwee between aa a community ing enforced communism esart isalt 11 gibas alous creed and another community practising practicing plurality ot of wives as pan paa of their religion it ia the barne bamme tal tai laciona reasoning only la in another form adopted by attorney general devena and fathered by the bg preme court of the united on the same question the sattel butte or indian widow burning Thug glem or oriental murder were drought brought into comparison t 1 mormon plural mairi marriage age and tbt tit reasons why they could be laviely prohibited and suppressed in lathi tb country made to do duty aa w arrn arn ments for the prohibit prohibition uon and lai gap pre pres slon aaion of mormon polygamy the weakness in both argumenti lies in the total dissimilarity of til thi things claimed to be anko nuke elfon elion ed communism of the kind deece descry ed ad by judge hunter would be Q invasion of the nights nighta of proper propel the practices cited by the duprez court are violations of the q life sM mormon ormon onmon 11 plural marriage not of the nature of either it MX loz pelino onoe onee it infringes natural right light it would wt hotl criminal ir not made to BO by hj ue and is not then of the bocam crime because no wrong Is ia lalana against anyone any one and the very mot not or crime springs from the intent neither JB ia the Jud judges gelis Bump tion correct that in ili iii community where fali fail all fall bi bave bate sa ve one for the proy ploy pio pil governance of the people are a enlo enso and enforced the inot inov alone k the marital relations of a gi i number of persons personal pers pere ons are contrary that law take stake from it all th prestige of being an orderly ni kil peaceful community the that he be is wrong ilea iles in the taci tact that but for the noise and non nonsense senie mido milla about those marital relations by a few officious and desI designing guing balos there would be no disorder ox or disturbance of the community nor of the country as a conis coun quende quence thereof the supreme court of thi the united states while admitting like judge ludge hunter that our religious be ilet liet cannot be lawfully assailed do di e cited I 1 quoting from the pream preamble at to a virginia kinia ginia statute framed by 1 ml jefferson Jeu seu erson erbon that it Js is time enouf for t the a rightful right ful fui purposes pur posca of ch cly government for ya ils to inte inter fene feno when principles break out into overt acts sots against peace and sad ludgood good order neither the supreme court bu st temp tempha bula buia ped peA BA to prove eum ua mon plural marriage dom dna mis WIN in any way and thus both establish the reverse of th own conclusions religious belie beile is free religious practice must mufit ix equally it interferes VW human auman rights or disturbs the pua peace and the good order of tl community and in this cue cabe all t disturbance cormea comes from its oppa lents the judges argument that tie jil people of this territory form bat kat s small minority of the people of 0 the tio nation and that they are limhi 01 as aa well as legally bound to leda our present form of government te equally untenable th e main ciple on which this government i based Is theoule of the majority h the locality where thet rhet reilda I 1 cannot be denied that if the of massachusetts were to legal polygamy it would be legal im lra spec tive live of tle the views of the gref gret gre majority ol of the Ithe people of the natla natia the same principle holds good al moral question and but for nophy try and the right of mere might would hold hoid good as a legal alegar que it utah as much as in it la Is a domestic question it inhar to the people of the community it is not thrust upon any one outside it belongs to the local gov emmert tt 9 la Is not a national subject U r ariage Is ge and divorce are rightful rl limits of congressional th arity and belong if to the dd 6 law at all to the several organized commonwealths that mab mah up the federal union if we are legally bound to respect the present form of govern government men med and to obey laws which it has en a acted against our consent we ss AV not morally bound to do so BO when ol 01 common benses senses bense sense our cognizance i our rights and our oun religious religions con eions rive give us knowledge or fall be lief that it is wrong J judge hunte hunta may be right in pointing out to til tig th grand jury their legal duty to tola la dich dici persons against whom thus ther is probable evidence of vio TIo violation lAtion ol of the anti polygamy laws not correct in his argument hom dhom moral grounds grand jurors must respect their thein oath whatever their private beliefs may way be ibe they are called to act in a 1 rubw may consistently CW oft oai oat ahe law in relation to it whilo while morally they from its right fui ful biess hiess rhe the people of utah are placed in this position their moral and religious convictions are at variance with a law which has been specially framed to prevent the free exercise of those convictions they their are legally but not morally bound bonna to respect those enactments they are free to believe them wrong impolitic unnecessary and oppressive bat if they carry their convictions into practice and break the they must hold themselves ready to bear the penalties which the law provides but nut these can only be enforced on conviction no one can be rightfully punished on suspicion if the cry is raised let the same laws as in other parts of thia nati nation we res nes the laws be executed in the same manner as in other othen parta parts of the nation and let the executors and administrators oi of the law eee see to it that they do not become partial and fanatical striving to provoke prosecutions in one particular direction to the neglect of othera others and straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel |