| Show A nos MOST T disgraceful I 1 AFFAIR THE verdict in the jones case will be aso a surprise fikse to marly mariy people I 1 we confess it is not so to us apen en luriea are understood to be paneled em for the purpose purpose of carry ing siut the instructions of the prosecutor and tak 1 court bourt itis U is notto not to be expected that any other verdict will be rendered rena rendered ered than that desired by the prosecution we jp not believe and the general beneral public I 1 ia 1 I t tha hz it t the he accused had thad not 44 naas ingis the would 11 0 uld have befi an any terence te tense tence of k case afaf against 4 them T that the verdict was oot only t unsupported tty the evidence but ally in erect to the evi deuce deuce must be patent to every person who has 68 w watched the case intelli 4 abe defendants fend ants were we 6 indicted udder i 61 atie revised statutes of I 1 A t nsf united a N hach reads as fol aws avory person who promises offers or ir gives or causes or procures to be promised offered or riven given any money or other thing of value or makes or tenders any contract undertaking ob 11 gation gratuity or security for t the he payment of money or tor for the delivery or conveyance ol 01 anything ot of value to any officer of the united states or to any person acting for or on behalf of thy tho ou united cited states tates iu in tiny any official I 1 function ulle under or by authority of any de p pait at ment or office of the government thereof or to any officer or person act acl in ing for or go behalf of either house p congress or of any committee of either house or both houses thereof with lh intent to influence his decision or action on any question matter cause or proceeding which may at gny any time be pending or which way may by law be brought belore becore him in his official capacity or in his bis place of trust or profit or w with ith intent to influence him tu commit or aid in committing or to collude in or allow any fraud or make opportunity for the commission of any an fraud on the united states or to in induce nee him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his bis lawful duty shall be punished as prescribed in the preceding section the penalty prescribed in the preceding suction section is a fine of not more than three times the amount of money or value of the thing so offered promised promis edi given made or tendered or caused or procured to be so offered promised riven given made or tendered and add imprisonment lor for nut not more than three years it will be perceived that to constitute this offense the person sought to lo be bribed must be acting at the time in an official function under authority of tue tae united states if he be is nut not an officer of the united states no crime is committed in im offering a person money for information such as the defendants sought to obtain from E A pranks franks everybody is at liberty to form an opinion as to the propriety muia lity wisdom or expediency of such a proceeding but tha not the question before the jury ury if franks was not acting in an official capacity under authority of the united states at the time when the the money was L aid said to have been tendered to him bim as prepaid wages for the se services vices required aud and agreed to be rend ren dered no offense csc was committed c against the statute under the defendants were indicted this is beyond dispute the prosecution understood that fac tand therefore ther elore procured the indictment of the defendants for bribing a united states deputy marshal th chii then iq ia what the defendants were tried for they were not tried for bribing a bailiff or a penitentiary guard or anyone any one else but a deputy ty marshall marshal the evidence established te ie fact that the so called deputy marshal was not an officer of the united states nor to in any official capacity but simply an unofficial employed of karsnal ire 19 Jau jauan ado itis it is beyond doubt that he was ti neither either when approached by wio w io claimed to be acting for jones ue he had been both guard and bailiff but had been discharged no site attempt ampt was wade made to endow him with official authority until district attorney dickson as the evidence shows conspired with barshal ireland to entrap jones and by making franks a deputy that they did not succeed was shown in the fact that frabl never executed a ab vani ph A purported bond was introduce ducep put but it was not signed by the he principal md aad the pretended sureties if they swore they were worth lopoo committed perjury the dockum document ent was wae a straw bond i ie e not worth two straws franks swore he never gave therond theA ond or saw it or knew of its existence ifil a bond to be valid must be signed by the person executing inga hi need not botoe be explained to 0 any que one with the least knowledge of law the poland act of 1884 provides concerning ang the appointment of deputy marshals in utah such appointment shall not be complete until ne nef shall iball give a bond to said marshal with sureties to be by him bird approved in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars conditioned for the abe faithful ol of his duties e etc t c franks not having given a bond was w s not a deputy marshal the attempt to make him one for the purpose of en tr appi ng jones and into coni mit tineL a crime was a failure because of the false bond business the whole scheme was disreputable almost too low for the scrubbiest scrub biest pettifoggers pettifog gers and jeton it is made to hang the ruling of the court and the verdict ot of the jury and consequently the fate of the two defendants but B ut view the status of franks as we may the fact remains blat t t neither jones nor knew that they were treating with a deputy mahal or other officer of tile the united Sta states tVs franks testified tes tined tied that he told at the third conversation that he was nat a deputy marshal that 4 e never told him fi he was a deau deputy ty that he be never informed him ot of any change that when jones and were present t he never told them anything about it the defendants then having baving been informed that franks was apt a deputy marshal had no idea that they were yi violating the law what they did d id was under th the e impression imp ressi on that t they h e were ere doing in violation of law 1 a w for 9 as we have chown there was wab nothing criminal in their act acl if pranks franks was not a ah n officer his 1 teotimo 1111 Hy is that be was made an officer to 1 jake ake the crime complete and tie he per persons who laid this trap and worked to turn the acts of jones and into a crime are district at A torney Dickson and ex vichal marshal ireland elaud Ir the former suggested it as necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose in hand and the pliant Marst marsial ial was reau ready to carry it t ou out I 1 fix up the straw bon and swear anything and do anything thin 9 to make ake the crime complete 11 under a er such and in view of these facts can any fair minded person say the verdict was according to the evidence the court is largely large y to blame lor for the result judge zane as reported ruled that it was immaterial whether defendants knew that franks was in III fact a deputy marshal that if defendants were mistaken m as to the character of the office held by flanks and aad if the latter did not hold tue the office they supposed suy posed he did the bribery is not less cri criminal because of the mistake also that it is not material whether we the bond way was or was not signed by the sureties or that the sureties were not worta the amount involved this it appears to very misleading the question is not did the defendants make a mistake ake I 1 as to the character ot of the office but did they believe that franks held auy any office the united states at all and further did he hold bold the office ot of dep tz ut uty marshal also the poi point at is not the hig signature nature of the sureties but the SIF signature nature of the principal the rhe cha charge rge is briba bribing liga a US U S d deputy e auty mb marshal the evidence showed that according to the requirements of law franks was not la a lawful deputy mar soul for the reasons we have cited it they bribed anybody it was not a lawful officer even taking the views of the prosecution cution the did not know they were a united states officer of any class to berf perform 01 in an unlawful act and the matter being in doubt they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt ib but the jury was selected from a class opposed to that to which the de fondant fen dant jones belongs and to chica it was supposed belonged it was picked with the view of having it irom that class it was not in an impartial u jury it was not a just verdict the proceeding are tainted with the odor of the plot bet between een dickson and Irel Ir elaud aLid to turn a lawful act into a crime and then gutsue the alleged criminals with that mat malice and that have disgraced the anti euion prosecutions and calr niad clr thial of a ashaia d a pretence predence pre tence the defense was waa vigorously conducted aud and the abter babeles buess of tile the charge aud and the conduct ot of the olli cial conspirators were boici bly exhibited the verdict was not the fault of the case nor 01 defendants counsel it was simply the echo of the prosecution aud a u d the expected finale to another ati anti imor mon farce the verdict way was wanted by bv we toe pro prosecutor ec aud and all ah he be to do under pres present ent is to let the jury know it A new trial will be asked tur lor and probably refused W we L hope it will be carried up as lar far as aa tue la law allows wallows itis it is a affair aud and whatever may oe be the outcome the official conspirators who plotted to t complete the crime will stand besmirched smirch ed with the dirt ot of their doings do i ng to the disgust of every man in the country |
