| Show J > WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE l No doubt Judge Pow ra > isflieuiost astonished man in Utah and likely the most amused one too at the amount oft of-t lii dissgnycg opinion izj44ie i iTiisr case if he haa been alive Leg1 a-live Commission entire his action could not have created moro comment than it has WjSfKgihat STTad o scon I irwMondayTasF but we nevef presumed to construe the law and say what it should he or what it should not be In his dissenting opinion Judge P k alloys g 0 S The instruction requested by the defendants defend-ants counsel should have been given and in not giving it the Court virtually allowed tho jury to believe that there is no presump tionrof Jaw that at the passage of the Ed munds 4apt those whojiadjived polygamy tfeforQ Censed to do so In my opinion such is the presumption of law AVhether igh ioj i riol thy Hjgp wet we-t do not presume to say but certain it is that such is not the law in the opinion oft of-t t Tribune and it makesvtlris comment upon it The position of Judge Powers that the passage of the Edmunds act raised a presumption pre-sumption that the Mormons who had been praotioing polygamy thereupon abalidbried suck practice is a most singular one It is not generally known that the passage of a tat1 se tiAi3 rJ u4tisi wha ever as to ether il will bo obeyed or not True there is one great drawback to the position of Judge Powers and that is he is a Democrat But we have never heard thatJudge Boreman was a Democrat Dem-ocrat and have never flloughtlTim to bed 1 c be-d > is embrace MoVmonismt and yet His Honor entortaijisIiQUjih The aani Q opinion regarding the presumptions of the law aa to the cessation of the practice prac-tice l o m9ti J ca D i Vunitetr45tatetr r againsRVilliam 1r6thJr ingham indicted for unlawful cohabitation cohabita-tion in giving his charge to the jury His Honor ontthitfeppmt sai < f r p < 1 I The law presumes innocence and thcre foro that all persons who were cohabiting when the Edmunds Act took effect contrary do to the provisions of that act then ceased to t oIIr rZ QI 1a It is a rule of law that all presumptions may be rebutted but until rebutted they aie to Bland jiy favor of t1o Her on byt J whom they are invoked But the Tribune further says The only true ground is that given by Judge Zano in refusing to give such a misleading mis-leading instructionthat the law presumes the prisoner at the bar to be innocent until he is proved guilty further thaii lSiattllSyB is not and cannot be any presumption This is much after the manner of the JIVieijis decision is fully as weights amino ami-no mire sf freKvUhlto Isll onls ues tlon not presuming to say what is or what is not the law This is the question ques-tion If the law presumes a man juno cent muse IF = ifF logifeiflly presfiifletifat lie haS eeasecLto do HnSao Uifiigs tVKtr wouldni5toKirn giiflty There was this merit about Judge Powers opinion that he gave it because e1elicvCt1 if It was as muchCulp JyityjJo4disenj iJ2 i he could not concur in the decision of the majority of the Court as it would have been for him to say lie concurredhad his opinion been their opinion Possibly His Honor will wonder how so small a thing could create so great a commotion and his tjh wi u hisr n tiThi rf ti1t1P r I Du It > > j iI fiS i |
