Show AN INFAMOUS OUTRAGE no intelligent and fair minded person can peruse the account of the proceedings in the hendrickson dr habeas corpus case without being filled with ineffable Ine frable disgust he also feel humiliated at the fad fact that there are am things in human shape so ao completely lost loaf 0 to o common decency and common humanity as to perpetrate so BO infernal an outrage as aa the act in question we are an of opinion that men no matter what may he be their official or otherwise who will commit such an outrage M a appears in the hendrickson cow are worthy of being covered with eternal contempt not only is the tee act of consigning an innocent and respectable woman to the confines of a prison and compelling her as in this instance to associate with the vilest ovile of vile characters in conflict with every human instinct but is in flat fiat and positive contravention of an express statutory enactment and of the law as rendered by the highest tribunal in the land the law in rel relation atlon to the privilege of the witness in this instance is isso so plain that a tool fool might run and read unless his eyes were covered with the green goggles of malignity what can be said mid of an attorney representing this great government at second hand who will in the twe lace of law superior court construction and the most ordinary rules of common sense contend that the competency of a witness should not be passed upon before the giving of a ruling as to the the materi materiality anty of questions propounded by a grand jury anyone any one with an amount of brains falling to the lot of an adi ordinary so ass ought to see that the question of competency mu must at first be d decided e because the materiality of evidence necessarily depends upon that point it is in the matter of acting as a witness as in that of a 16 juror whose competency or alegi ability must be determined before he can be required to serve otherwise the service might be illegal and void but it seems to be the object in toe the case of mrs hendrickson to compel her to give illegal testimony the ascertainment of competency must precede the act beyond it in the very nature of things jf if the te riles modus sperandi ope randt in this thio matter is to be pAnt ted by mr iet peters ars the qu question estion may possibly be raised as to whether that functionary is allowing i himself to be re depre pie pi e by n an ft idiot or sal ali HUH more dangerous gud and obnoxious one who perverts his mental and professional profess lonal powers pow e rs to base and inhuman 1114 it uses A aa presented atod by mr bawling all the evidence before the grand jury and the court was to the the witness was wae the ta legal wm wife of the whom the investigation was wae directed there was wag not a particle of ies testimony to the contrary consequently she had a right to refute refuse to testily testify until the opposite of her aLett statement ement could reproved be proved but the factor act of her being the legal wife as wa understand it ft is not even disputed it is doubtless believed then it looks AS if an effort was being made baade to extort illegal evidence froni her by skipping the question of competency and leaping secondary conday se question of the the interrogations propounded 1 the 1 P PO point int of la law w under which mrs ai hendrickson 10 sought protection is ofie one 4 of the most essential jn n the code do de of civilized civilized jurisprudence t i if Is in unison with the principle that no ho accuse accused dl person aerson ejibe shall be compelled e fled to against himself the next step uto to prohibit khe PV oln b of a woman testifying anig agalena t her W husband or vwe vice versa the wb tie art in fh a sense recognized ae oili one daid the interests and 61 on cannot be impaired without flie othar being it la Is eftig U tive ve of di the conjugal and r atiq tion on 0 n the theory that whatever Wha tiet tends io to the dissolution df the aiato Is e iw k the atte tate such cases I 1 as aa I 1 that to mch jap ha hendrickson Hendrick gon is h in evitable evit ebly ably have that cy in purview our view the proceeding is purely and beyond eve evelia T RUT shiaw s bertan tan n al 1 9 e lato late la to national ae legislation il ion ag against t utah it A ai has a s been aus customary for the courts P to lay stress i u upon tiie the ant that awa it wa the deap demolition 9 on of A i qc certain in peculia i mar relationship tw tha was al aimed med at as it ft jh abeen 4 beert declared illegal if would hii appear from aiom tha infamous proceeding under consideration however thatis that the theory theor of ot judge he I 1 erian and 14 hiles ilai that t the blow biow was also aimed at legal mar marriage Aage and kit fat thai that as association S L should nat 15 e deemed sacred such would be the tendency were their views endorsed and carried to a logical conclusion T they hay will we are pleased to be able fb b say be lately largely isolated isolate 4 in the A attitude they have assumed lively honorable and upright man worthy the he name can in our view but con can not only the inhumanity but the illegality ia city of the position they nave have taken there is also a certain gallantry pa in every matt man who is not a coward wad which causes him to feel a glow of indignation when he sees the weak z trampled and outraged under the feet of the strong when the wea weak k is i in the form fora of a woman the sentiment is deep and Iti intense tense beyond ex expression res slon cius far we know of no one I 1 who lias has attempted ampt fe defend the of f what wb t we consider one of the most extrajudicial extra eftin judicial acts on record should any makepe endeavor they ought to be quick about it that at trie they may Y be upon the ca catalogue 0 e of cravens |