| OCR Text |
Show BEFORE THE JURY. i - Varlan Portrays the Hampton Gang j in Some Earning Language. j"Tbe Knot-Hole Brigade " Hare Furnished Fur-nished the Testimony to Convict , Themselves. An Able Defeuse For a Defenseless Cause, and the Case Goes to . . the Jury. As the Demochat went to press last night the testimony in the conspiracy case was given up to the tinre B. Y. Hampton left the stand. The next witness called I was Ed. L. Butterfield. He testified that ! lie had rented the house opposite the j Continental Hotel to Mrs. Fields on June i !3d, 1S85. j j Policeman Bateman was next called, j His testimony was in substance as follows fol-lows : He was present when Hampton made the contract with the woman Fields ; Hampton was to pay her $25 for every man detected in .her house. He heard her once give Hampton the names of men . she had caught. He is a regular police officer; had no regular beat, and received a salary of $80 per month ; couldn't recollect re-collect how many men be had arrested, and couldn't name but one. Was present when Fields was at the jailor's house ; she said she had come on detective business busi-ness ; Hampton paid her no money then. She was to receive nothing till the affidavits affi-davits were made. Salmon also engaged in the conversation. Presumed from the talk that everything had been previously arranged. This was between the 12th and the 15th of June. I was requested to act in the scheme a few days afterwards, after-wards, by Salmon. Salmon and he visited the house twice together. Had been hers thirty-five years ; had been deputy sheriff and constable. con-stable. "Salt Lake Police" are the words on the star. Hampton was recalled. The meeting with Fields, as mentioned by Bateman, was the only contract he ever made with her. Officer Smith was present that night ; is now sick in the Pen ; he is un able to be here. Bateman's testimony is substantially correct. Shortly after that he went to San Francisco. Captain Greenman testified that he went to Denver to arrest Mrs. Fields ; he told her she was charged with keeping a house of ill-fame. All the evidence being in, court adjourned ad-journed till 10 o'clock this morning. This morning the Hampton conspiracy case was resumed in the Third District Court, with all the jurors, attorneys and a fair audience of listeners present. All the testimony being in, Mr. Varian for the prosecution made the opening speech. In his characteristic, clear and concise manner, attention was called to the statute under which this process was executed. exe-cuted. He stated that the testimony of an accomplice is to be taken when corroborated. cor-roborated. THE PROPOSITION OF CONSPIRACY Was first dwelt upon and shown conclusive conclu-sive to have existed. The statement that the crime charged was committed by the woman was refuted, and she was shown to have been a miserable and deluded de-luded dupe in the hands of the instigators of the nefarious plot. The broad philanthropic philan-thropic scheme of Brig Hampton and accomplices was done without authority. There were not enough houses of ill-repute in Salt Lake and more had to be established as lodging-houses, not suppressed sup-pressed by an' Territorial statutes until proven of ill-fame. The defendant Bent $803 away to get women detectives, and PROPOSED TO BREAK DOWN THE DOORS Of houses, as done in years heretofore. He went tq these houses time and again, to observe the workings, with his right-hand right-hand man, Salmon. That statute for the restriction of houses of ill-fame has been a dead letter upon the statute book for these many years. He knew, as an officer offi-cer for many years in different capacities, that these houses were here, and that a law existed for their suppression. He did j not employ detectives to go and detect! the visitors and proprietors of these long- ! established houses. What slight evidence have you that there was any intention on i the part of any of these men to investi- j gate these houses. Did that man and those aiding him have a thought that they were LEADING PERSONS TO COMMIT CRtME '. Who would otherwise never have committed com-mitted it? How do you reconcile the scheme of making good people bad ? The business of a detective is an honorable profession when executed properly, but the procuring of such persons as engaged in this instance is a mockery. Such detective de-tective agencies as this think a man to be weak anyway, and they merely help him along to his ultimate end, and then say, Behold ; see what a great criminal we have arrested! What do you think of a process which leads men into crime in order to convict them ? The defendant here has wound himself up in his own web so tightly that he cannot can-not escape from it. I could not but think when the witness testified here that, although al-though she had sunk low down in the depths of degradation .there still remained within her some of the instincts of the true woman, although deluded. He bargained with her tor men at the rate of $25 a head, Mormon, Jew or Gentile, Gen-tile, as a butcher buys sheep for the market mar-ket . We all understand how a woman may fall under various circumstances, but what are you to think of a man who has so LOST HIS AMBITION, HONOR AND DECENCY As to engage in such a business as this, of bargaining for his fellow-men "at $25 a ; head? They are both on a par on the same plane. They both are crini- i inals. One a female prostitute, and the other her best friend, j When on the stand she all at once j realized her situation and the vortex into i which she had been drawn, and with all the natural feelings of herself regained, she exciaimed in pointing to the defendant, de-fendant, "You got me into all this trouble." trou-ble." "I wouldn't have done it for a million dollars had I known it would result re-sult in this." If Hampton didn't give this miserable woman the money to buy the furniture at Dinwoody's, who did? If Salmon is to be treated as an accomplice, certain cer-tain evidence must be corroborated. WK I1AVE HOOKED HIM, j And all that remains is to land him. He j says upon oath that this woman did keep i a house of ill-fame resorted to for J prostitution and lewdness, which was re-1 sorted to under his knowledge. How i can this man appear here and swear he i wanted to break up such houses. There is j no statute here against lodging houses ; nor anything of the kind. If this scheme j didn't constitute the opening of a house i of ill-fame why didn't Hampton go to ! this haggard woman, and tell her here, j this won't do, I will not become engaged j in any such criminal offense as this. To show the utter depravity of the j scheme, the law doesn't contemplate the j inviting of a person to such a place as; this, as was done by tliis ring of Hamp- ; ton conspirators. Then these parties will i come here and deliberately swear that ; parties were arrested for resorting to these I houses of prostitution for lewdness. After I Mr. Hampton got all these affidavits J against the'se parties in his vest pocket, to be filed away among the archives to be resurrected "from time to time, and had sent this miserable deluded harlot out of the country, he cried aloud, "See, didn't we tell you so? And here's the woman's signature!" What can you think of such a plot? What would you think of a dog that would engage in such i a low, villainous undertaking? When the. ! defendant appeared before the Grand Jury he was told that if he preferred to remain silent on the matter he could do so ; he chose to testify, and said he had engaged this woman for the purpose and paid her money for her services. In his testimony he has corroborated the woman's evidenee and sealed' his fate beyond the peradventure of a doubt. THE EVIDENCE IS COMPLETE, And not a link in the chain of convicting evidence is wanted, and the defendant stands here to-day doomed as a criminal to the charge against him, and on his Own voluntary testimony. THE DEFENSE COMMENCES. Judge Hoge followed Mr. Varian for the defense by saying that the statutes cited were obsolete, and where is the case ever brought by the prosecuting attorney before be-fore this court? Gentlemen of the jury, I would call your attention to the fact that the Court brought the last Grand Jury into this court and instructed them regarding the evidence of these objection-j objection-j able houses and THEY FAILED TO BRING IN AN INDICTMENT, The defendant is not called in here to explain away any crime, but to simply j answer the charge alleged in the. indictment. indict-ment. The fact must be shown that a conspiracy was entered into to establish this house of ill-fame. Mrs. Field testifies tes-tifies upon this stand that Mr: Hampton entered into an agreement with her to open a house of ill-fame, that he paid the rent and bought the furniture and managed man-aged the affair. Did she, could she or would she tell you a single word that Brig. Hampton said to her in that agreement? agree-ment? No. She could not, and only admitted that he hired her to work for him, and that he was to open the house of ill-fame. That is the substance of her testimony in regard to the conspiracy. Does the fact that she wrote to or called on Mr. McKay to learn the particulars regarding the opening of a house of ill-fame ill-fame corroborate the testimony of the prosecution? Take Mr. Scott's evidence as to what Mr. Hampton stated before the Grand Jury. He testifies here that the defendant said he paid the woman Fields about $400, with the evident in-I in-I tention of DETECTING FREQUENTERS TO THIS HOUSE. Mr. Morris R. Evans, evidently a very willing witness, stated here that Mr. ' Hampton said he paid this woman a certain cer-tain amount of money. This man Ray-bould Ray-bould said he believed he could relate the substance of the testimony, that Hampton Hamp-ton gave the woman a certain amount of money. Mr. W. Pitt, in almost direct contradiction contra-diction to Mr. Evans, said Mr. Hampton staled he paid the woman some $400 or $500. Here two witnesses corroborate the testimony of the defense in almost absolute contradiction to what others of the prosecution presented here. I ask you where .the evidence of the three Grand Jurors corroborate the testimony of this woman in proving a conspiracy ? Mr. Salmon and Brig Hampton admitted the payment of money,but it does not corroborate cor-roborate this woman in the fact of a conspiracy. con-spiracy. THIS IS A TP.IAL BETWEEN CLASSES, And are we to be brought in here to be tried by some class ? No, gentlemen ; we are to be tried justly in the eyes of the law. I think the prosecution is mistaken in his estimated power over this jury in setting forth the conduct and appearance of the defendant on this witness stand. Contrast the conduct of thi3 cringing slut of a woman upon the stand with the bold, frank demeanor of the defendant in his answers to the myriad of questions propounded pro-pounded by the opposite side. Here the speaker compared the case of the desperado des-perado John A. Merrill, and stated that to condemn Brig Hampton for the very act that made heroes of others was wrong. Mr. Hoge arrayed THE TWO OPPOSING ELEMENTS IN UTAH To show the existing feeling in this class of cases. Mr. Varian's eloquent and forcible for-cible remarks were acknowledged by Hoge to be superior to any member of the bar's, and should not be permitted to bias the minds of the jury. In closing his speech he told the jury to weigh the testimony "compassionately" and render a verdict accordingly. MR. BURMESTER IS ASTONISHED. " Mr. Burmester started out by expressing express-ing his utmost astonishment at "the speech delivered by his worthy opponent. He expected to hear something quiet, modest, and in the way of an attempt at facts in the case. He bad been appalled and humiliated by fifty-five minutes of police court. talk. It seemed to him that all lessons he ever had learned of the' duties of a people's prosecutor would have to be unlearned. The prosecutor should never descend from his exalted position to heap abuse upon a defendant, and he was overwhelmingly over-whelmingly amazed at the heaping up of rubbish and truck by his worthy brother. Of all the perplexing questions ever brought up for settlement CONSPIRACY ADMITS OP THE MOST CON- j FUSION. The speaker read the complaint and proceeded to explain its every detail after the manner of a district pedagogue, asking the jury repeatedly if they caught the idea. Hampton and' Fields are charged with starting a bawdy house, which you all understand the meaning J of. The speaker became enthused with j his subject, and in one broad, sweeping expression, knocked his hearers cold by DECLARING THE STATUTE" MEANINGLESS ! Which relates to the term "conspiracy." Why has conspiracy ever been made a crime at common law? It is because I two or more persons combining in the act of prostitution endangers the community by threatenings of damaging inciease. I never could see the difference between one person running a house of ill-fame and the running of such a place by a half-dozen. Mr. Burmester showed himself him-self well up in certain parlance, and gave vent to many decidedly new features in impressing the jury with the fact of how little they knew of the meaning of the indictment and of the statute furnish- j ing the same. He himself was com- I j paratively ignorant of the subject in dis- j j pute, although he proved himself skilled in the modern use of reserved slang in defending Mr. Hampton from j the odium " now attached to him. ; The speaker warmed up to the possibili- r ties of his subject until the court-room j fairly resounded with his stentorian voice, j as he graphically portrayed in his own I peculiar style the wrinkled, dried-up, j miserable wretch of a woman, not to be ; compared to a galvanized Egyptian mum- ; my. The moral exhibitions of Mr. Hampton here and before the Grand Jury were eulogized as the MANLY DEMONSTRATIONS OF A HERO, And not as Mr. Varian's arch-conspirator. He acted like a true man in the detective de-tective business, which is the most ungrateful un-grateful undertaking known. |
