Show I 1 THE RULING konin G IN wavor FAVOR OF THE LECHEROUS 1 THE decision of chief justice zane 1 it tile the interest of the male prostitute did not surprise the large lane majority 0 the public it has become so eviden that protection is to oe tic afforded to th dirty doings of officers cors cirs of the fhe cour court i that few indulged the hope that a ciu cic ordinance which had bad been in success ful operation against I 1 lewd and lasch lous ions conduct both of males and fe i males for over ten years would be hel as valid against the sacred of a U S deputy marshal ther then were other persons too in close con lection with interested parties wh stood in similar danger it if the erdl nance should be enforced in thel cases and something had bad to be don to save them from punishment and ex kosure no one who has watched thai the cours of judicial proceedings during the yea now near its close doubts for a mo ment that if it the person in whose be half the ordinance was tested had bee beel a mormon brit bril I 1 instead of a court there would woM dhave have been interposition no of the court to save his lustful bod from imprisonment and noone no one wb has taken note of the present franti frantl efforts to stille stifle inquiry and head bead oft off tb lb police in the performance of thel duty has hasan any doubts aa to the character char acte anaf ana and doings of the parties accused c offenses against law and decency I 1 in order to arrive at the desire luy tuy liberation 0 ui the officer I 1 the custody of the police and the sup suf su pres pree sion slon of the overwhelming ev elj clence against him considerable inge nulty had bad to be exercised the sei sel s X vices of lawyers who had bad prosecute prosecute offenders under the very ordinance ord inanc called in question were engage engaged the t b they might turn their f amil amii illaria larity wu wl its construction and their th it experienc ex perlen perien in its enforcement into t the e channel by tha the metti methods with ith abic lawyers are familiar its a stran lawyer that cail call cant it w worle ork orl both bo t h W way sy y words in the ordinance and in the crl cri charter arter artur authorizing it were sneezed squeezed down to I 1 a signification that suited the purpose the court adopted the rendering of the tho turncoat attorneys and ao iso the ob was wa done let lut us briefly examine some of the arguments ot of the court it may be asked aled what is the use now that the decision is rendered none perhaps so far as the decision is concerned but a great deal in other ways there ure such things as justice right and consistency though some coutts coutta may have ua no use ube fur them and the public have the right of review on oil all doing doings of public servants luis Itis it is proper that questions ruled in the behall behalf of whoremongers should bo lie understood by the public in their proper light and the history of utah jurisprudence snows the tolly jolly of dependence on judicial ruling elthe either r as reliable authority on the meaning ot words or the end ol 01 controversy on questions of law lc it is conceded that the city has no power to vaas baa ordinances except that conveyed to it by legislative charter tile the question before bufore the court was had bad lne lue city authority in ILL its charter to pass the ordinance weicht which vandercook was prosecuted for lewd and lascivious conduct section 22 of the charter charler gives power to the city to restrain aud and punish prostitutes and to suppress or restrain bawdy and other disorderly houses section 39 gives authority to prevent any obscene or indecent exhibition exposure or conducts conduct section CL gives kives general power to pass such ordinances as they may deain necessary lon lor the peace good order regulation convenience and cleanliness of the city health safety and happiness thereof the only restriction being that the ordinances dinn din ances ces shall be nol not repugnant to the constitution of the united states ortha or th laws of this thia territory I 1 judge judee zane saz say lathat sa that under section 22 there is DO to pass tae ordinance lif in question except as to prostitution tit ution the power to restrain prostitutes prostitute st he says would authorize the power to restrain prostitution well then how can prostitution be restrained by simply p punishing ant shing one of the parties to the offender off enser cf docs not knot the term itself imply more than the passive or submissive party parly must northe active who la is really reilly the chief party to the crime be at least equally g and in order to suppress pro by ordinance is it not neues sary that the male as well as the female prostitute be punished but the special pleading attorney whose arguments seem to have neen indorsed indorse indor sed A by the complaisant jude jud I 1 le says no one but a female can DU be a prostitute and his authority for this definition is webster iler ref bredee to that authority snows that the terms prostitute and prostitution embrace both sexes to devote to base or unworthy put purposes poses Is s to 1 prostitute 11 devoting to lamous infamous In purposes what isn asin ones power powers Is prostitution in inthe the case at issue prostitution in its sexual sense was waa involved and in tue of tile rne involved and in tue tile rne kind of prostitution referred to in the cuartero cu arter it is essential that the 6 pross pros titu tl tutor torl 11 who according to webster 19 G one gone who prostitutes ore one ano wh to submits himself or offers another to vile purposes should receive his martof part ot the penalty under the ordinance stiny any person who is gully guilty of lewd or lascivious conduct or prostitution ils lis ais liable to both tine line and imprisonment but judge zane says lewdness under the ordinance must be cudlic to constitute tute an offense and aud that in lecent means meana the same as lewd he admits tuat the terms lewd lewd and lascivious in the ordinance mean substantially the same fame as a obscene and indecent in the charter but tie he says this does doea not refer reter to a single act 1 means a repetition of acts openly ani aal pub publicly liely san Ban dalous kr by aile ruing a man and woman may ion ton nuil nulL any kind of obscenity indecency lewdness and lasciviousness so long ions as if it is not public and an anyhow how if tiley are not guilty of a repetition on of 0 j acts ae ts there inere is no punishable panon offense under a law against lewd and lascivious conduct 11 nothing I 1 can be lewd then unless it is done jef before ore many persons and repeated it webster la is good authority for one definition in in an ar ur gumer j is good for another lewd according to that authority la is with wanton 11 impure unchaste lecherous 11 libidinous filthy etc lewdness is the unlawful indulgence n dul dui gence of lust just licentiousness profligacy webster fays pays nothing about publicity dees does judge zane mean to tell us that there can be no unlawful ul indulgence of lust unless it is public that no act of lechery can be committed unless unies S it 16 is done before many persons H he e will feay perhaps chaps not in the meaning of the charar for this refers to public conduct that what Thatis Is the theN var way he construe construes sIt lt but buter d as s it say so sog not at hll ill all ali some of the acts referred to la in the same section are public acts no doclie but not all any obscene or indecent exhibition ex kosure r conduct are the words exhibition and exposure might be construed as to signify public exhibition hibi tion or exposure though this Is not necessarily implied for both can be more or less lesa private priva te but conduct preceded by or is segregated from thre thee other expressions and stands alone as obscene or indecent con duct judge zane admits means lewd and lascivious conduct without reference to privacy or publicity judge zane ar argues es as to the meaning and intent of ta the legislature very good let us see how hony the legislature viewed the signification of lewdness 11 and whether that body considered lewdness must consist of public c acts acta see seepage page goj eon yon piled laws of utah 44 every person who keeps a house of ill lii 1 I fame tame iu in this thia territory resorted to for the purpose of p restitution prostitution or lewdness lew elness einess or who wilfully wilf uly re relies relles reiles in such house or resorts thereto for lewdness Is 11 guilty of a misdemeanor how now does this comport citi judge 1 zanes zanea interpretation lewdness Lew duess ducas l ies les is jia the legislature viewed it ils vis is gat that kind of obscene or indecent conduct tor fur which persons resort to a house of III ill tame fame that la is just the kind of obscene and indecent or lewd and lascivious conduct with which deputy deuty vandercook was charged the he dau dan damning ining luing proofs of which it was so desirable to keep irom froin from the light anu and aul which judge zane wane cont ary arv iry acy from the abb intent and meaning weaning of the legislature ruled must be public to constitute an odense under tho charter which the legislature enacted then as to the general welfare clause of the charter we ask any person with ordinary good sense it an ordinance to punish filthy men who resort to houses of ill fame make beastly exposures of their persons play vile tricks too obscene to 10 mention and anti prostitute their bodies in the most degrading manner mauner is not necessary ta the peace good order regula tiou tion health safety safely and happiness ol 01 this city it has not been shown nor we believe contended that the ordinance ir 14 repugnant to the constitution of the united states or any law of this thia territory I 1 I 1 what bilat then can a who heavily tines fines and sends an honorable respected citi the penitentiary for unlawful cohabitation reusing refusing his offered proof that he lie had kept from sexual cohabitation with his wives and turns free to continue his libidinous practices a creature who dares not face lace the evidence of his acts and that too under the thu plea that his beastliness was not public and that power to punish such conduct does not dot come under authority to pass ordinances for tor the peace good order etc of the inhabitants of the city the courts have ruled in reference to polygamy I 1 a Y without a a syllable of proof ro f that at it was an overt act against peace bace and good order if it that is true how ow much more in violation of peace and good order are ate the acts against which the city has passed ordinances which are now set aside in the interest of whoreson whoremongers ers obscene lecherous defiled denied and beastly libertines and de bauchens bau chees whose chief virtue Q consists in their venom against the II 11 mor bior mons mong 11 truly shame has fled from the faces of those who minister in the r temple of justice consistency hides itself from their presence re sence purity keeps atar atan off and whitie while sophistry and casuistry at ba blunt ant the darts ot the law profit gacy facy I 1 is encouraged rage d I 1 lechery is is protected 1 tecte I 1 and ratan satan satan rejoices over the spectacle and his prospects |