Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 14, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 May 1885 — POLYGAMY’S DEATH-BLOW. [ARTICLE]

POLYGAMY’S DEATH-BLOW.

The Supreme Court Renders a Decision in the Case of Rudger Clawson. In a Carefully Prepared Opinion the Ruling Is Against the Plaintiff on Both Points Raised. [Washington dispatch.] A decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the polygamy case of Rudger Clawson against the United States, brought here by writ of error from the Supreme Court of Utah. Clawson, plaintiff " in error, was indicted for polygamy at the April term of 1884 of the District Court of Utah, and after trial found guilty and sen- - tence,d to a fine of SBOO and four years’ imprisonment. He appeared to the Supreme Court of the Territory, and that tribunal having affirmed the judgment of the District Court, he brought his case here for review, upon the ground that the grand and petit juries by which he was indicted and tried were ißegally constituted. The alleged illegality in the impaneling of the grand jury consisted iu the exclusion upon challenge of persons who believed a man had a right to have more than one undivorced wife living at ihe same time, and in the case of the petit jury in the drawing of the jurors from an “open venire,” after the whole annual jury list of 200 had been exhausted through • the exclusion of polygamists. This court, in a carefully prepared opinion by Justice Blatchford, decides against the plaintiff in error upon, both points raised. Section sos the Edmunds act provides:

T hat in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy. or unlawful cohabitation under any statute of the United States, it shall be sufficient cause of challenge to any person drawn or summoned as juryman or talesman, that he believes It right for a man to have more than one living and anI divorced wife at the same time. This court holds that the proceedings to - impanel the Grand Jury which finds in- [ dictment for one of the offenses named un- : der the statute of the United States against a person not before held to answer are part | of the prosecution, and that the indictment j is good, nllhough persons drawn and summoned as Grand Jurors were excluded by" the court from serving on the Grand Jury, and being challenged by the United States for eauße mentioned in the act, the challenges having been found true. With respect to alleged illegality in the case of the petit jury the court holds that where, under section four of the act of June 23, 1874, relating to courts and judicial officers in the Territory of Utah, the names in the jury-box of 200 jurors provided for by that section are exhausted, thejury being only partly impaneled, the District Court may issue a venire to the United States Marshal for the Territory to summon jurors from the body of the Judicial District, and the jury may be completed' from persons thus summoned. It is held that the record shows no error, and thejudgment of the court below is accordingly affirmed.