Show PERFIDY WK WE direct attention to the charge of judge jacob S foreman boreman to the jury in the case of wm win thompson which will be found in f full ull in another column those of our readers who have had bad enough of this matter and are not dot par particularly interested in the important questions involving the right to take human life aliat that enter into it need not examine the charge nor proceed f further in this article but men and women who desire to know their ri rights aits and to understand the extent of the wrongs sought to be inflicted on this community should thoroughly investigate vesti gate the whole subject the charge is i a sort of patchwork it was partly written and partly oral it the opinion of the judge part of it is the interpolation of the so soc called aUed prosecuting attorney who really pleaded for the defense and the rest reat ot of it the suggestions ot of the defendants fend ants counsel it is a lame and halting speech and being evidently in the assassin of the legal consequences of his crime needed tile the crutches supplied by thi the lawyers on engaged in the same cause Judge boreman confined hi his instructions territorial to the jury 1 ry to renderings rend erines of the territorial statutes relating to the offence offense charged he ignored entirely the waste of words by b mr virian varian endeavored to show tat that the territorial statutes cut no figure in i the case but he adopted the vicious monstrous and murderous doctrine of the pretended prosecution notifying justifying I 1 d a bloodthirsty deputy in to death a person for whom he has a war rant under the laws of the united states no matter how simple may be the offence offense charged mr jurians Vu rians claim was this 1 I say here it cannot be supposed t that hat the territorial act in relation to the justl justi li cation of an officers officer is ls to control 01 and bind the court in a case where a united states officer Is engaged in serving a process and in enforcing the laws of the united states but the judge ruled entire entirely lp under the territorial adt act notwithstanding and why because there is no law of the united states that by any possibility of legal twisting or judicial jugglery could tie be construed in just ideation of tue defendant there Is nothing in the united states statutes that authorizes an officer to take human life in executing civil process pro proc cefes ets the common law which mr bariao in one breath bala said wag wad outgrown and abolished so far as it relates to criminal of fences in the united states and in another endeavored to make apply iq 14 this case also affords no justification to an loff officer icer in the circumstances admitted in the case at bar therefore the territorial rit orial statutes that mr varian is sworn to honor but endeavored to trample upon were the only reso resource and ana we shall see aee how they were perverted to screen the defendant inthe in the penal code crimes are divided into two clas classes seli namely felonies and misdemeanors mr variah attempted in a long string of sophistical assertions and citations to show that under the lassof laws of the united states no DO distinction exists between the two classes of crimes and yet admitted that under those laws same some crimen are distinctly defined benned to be felonies while others are classed as misdemeanors thus disproving his own argument but bin the territorial statutes like those of other territories and the states draw a sharp distinction between the two classes of crimes A misdemeanor is not a f felony elony either under the common law the laws of the united states or the laws of utah there is no getting round this plain proposition and ally aalthe the pettifogging in the world whether from the oar or the bench cannot confuse this in a mind that keeps the distinction in view judge boreman perceived this and also the position in which it would place him if he be sworn to ad adjudicate ardi cate upon the laws of the T e rit 0 with of the united states stales attempted like mr VarI to make them of no effect upon marshal by doing this he would set act up the notion that a deputy marshal is above the jurisdiction ot of the territorial laws A vile enough doctrine doati ine to be enuncio by a prosecuting altornia altor but still more vicious and shameful il if 1 sustained by a judge therefore ne endeavored to give a meaning to the territorial statute not only unwarranted by its language but totally at variance with its provisions s P the law justifies an officer in taking life if necessary to the arrest of a felon or one against whom the officer holds hold as a warrant lor for escaping fromar rest the whole question of la law was is whether dalton was under indictment for a felony the question whether the shooting wilb wab necessary was one for the jury to determine the court was simply expounding the law what was the simple and direct way of determining the legal question was it not examination of the law denning defining the offence offense of which dalton was accused it that alleged offence offense was felony the officer might under given circumstances in case of necessity sabot the accused to ensure his arrest B but ut if it was not felony he was vot not justified b by the law dalton was accused of unlawful unlawful cohabitation the law jaw creating the offence offense says custin distinctly cly that it is a misdemeanor does not that legally settle the question and there lore fore not was unjustifiable un us tillable I 1 but here comes in the judicial quibble advanced by mr aud and adopted by judge boreman the territorial statute says crimes are divided into first felonies and second misdemeanors A telony felony is a crime which is or may be punishable with death or by imprisonment in the penitentiary every other crime is a misdemeanor 11 except in cases where a different punishment dment is prescribed by this code every offense declared to be a f felony elony ia punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five dye years except m cases where a different p punishment unish ment is prescribed by this code every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months or by a alne not exceeding three hundred dollars or both that is the law now hear the ruling of the judge the punishment of unlawful co habitation under the laws of this territory could be by imprisonment in the penitentiary I 1 A felony is a crime which PS as made punishable by death or imprisonment an fn the penitentiary in III contemplation temp lation of the territorial statutes therefore this was a penitentiary of fence this behave we ibave no hesitation in pronouncing noun cing a shameful and palpable FALSEHOOD 1 under the laws atthe territory the of fence called unlawful cohabitation is not and cannot be punished at all it is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor it p is not ILI al crime of any character it is not a penitentiary offence offense nor even a county jail of fence it is not to be found in the penal code cod nor in any other existing territorial ferrit orial statute this is beyond dispute the books are the anim unimpeachable hable witnesses find out about that offense we must go to the united states law that mat created it i the third section of the edmunds AU act defines it a misdemeanor and fixes axes the maximum punishment at six months imprisonment and a fine of three hundred dollars that ought to settle the question but coming back to the territorial statute partly quoted and falsely rendered by judge foreman the pro provision vision is that every offense declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable by imprisonment in thi the county jail not exceeding six months or by a fine not ey exceeding aeed three hundred dollars or by both unlawful cohabitation is aerially specially ly 61 declared to be a misdemeanor raj by act ot of congress thus there is no law either of the united states or of this territory making unlawful cohabitation a penitentiary offence offense or constituting it a felony in any way therefore the judges charge to the contrary was untrue misleading aud and calculated to deceive the public and justify assassins taking shelter under tiie name of deputy marshals we cannot think that either the prosecuting attorney who made the pernicious plea or the judge who adopted the murderous doctrine and thus aided in turning the manslayer mana layer loose without punishment was so ignorant as not to linow know that this position was unsound but the 8 13 specious decious fallacy was allowed to prevail that the end justifies jus tides the means that the capture of a mormon accused of infraction of the edmunds law is more important than the protection of human life and that murder may be nude innocent to enforce a congressional statute this charge of the judge was the excuse of the jury an crime was justified by a legal tribunal tri bunal A cowardly assassin who laid in wait with a rille rifle ad borrowed I 1 rowed and loaded for the purpose and waiting till his bis vic 1 urn tim was not likely to se eillis assailant cried halt and shot him through the back to death was voted free frow from blame and the law f framed to punish such hellish deeds of blood and horror is made the instrument of shielding and applauding the sneak and murderer and as encouragement to f urther further capital crime that Is how justice is administered in the courts of aoh |