Show THAT AMNESTY AGAIN in the case of the united states vs thomas pierpont pont in the first district court at provo the defendant objected to bein sentenced on what seems to us sufficient grounds the charge was adultery alleged to have been corn com bitted with a plural wife and the claim made by mr pierpont 99 attorneys was that the amnesty proclamation of president harrison covered the case the defendants offense having occurred prior to fe a e time specified by the executive as the one subsequent to which the amnesty would not take effect the prosecution demurred to this and judge blackburn black burn yesterday sustained the demurrer holding that adultery was not included in the cases pardoned this again raises the question as an to what and whom the pardon does reach of course the case cage will come up to the supreme court and then the interpretation so much needed apparently will be had bad perhaps the provo jurist had this in mind when he made his ruling |