GREAT SALT LAKE CITY, OCTOBER TERM, 1851.
1:100
Gentlemen of the Jury-The grand jury, called and sworn on behalf ofthe United States, having presented an indictment against Howard Egan, forthe murder of James Monroe-it becomes our duty to proceed with the case,and if he should be convicted or found guilty of violating the laws of theUnited States in this behalf, to pass sentence against him. For the purposeof determining the facts, you have been empannelled and sworn to give atrue verdict according to the evidence which should be given you in court.You will readily see that your duty is important. It is the right of theUnited States, the right of the citizens of this territory, and the rightof the defendant, to insist that you shall now discharge that duty withoutfear, affection, or partiality. It is the right of us all to insist that,when a crime has been committed, the offender shall be punished by due courseof law, but not otherwise. We have no right to punish a person for a realor imaginary wrong, except with the authority of law. The safety of ourselvesindividually, and of society, depends on the correct and faithful administrationof good and wholesome laws. No one ought to be punished unless he be guiltyof an act worthy of punishment, nor even then, unless that act has beendeclared to be penal by the law of the land, and the punishment directed,nor until he has had an opportunity of having a fair and impartial trial,for, peradventure, he may not be guilty as alleged against him. If the lawsuffered a person to be punished upon mere rumour, or upon strong circumstance,accompanied with the communication of our best-our bosom friends, withoutthe usual tests of truth which have been established, we might well pauseand wonder whereunto this would grow.
Gentlemen, you are the exclusive judges of the facts, and the courtis to be the judge of the law when the facts are found by you. Murder maybe defined to be, the unlawful: killing of a human being in the peace ofthe Republic, with malice prepense, or of forethought, by another humanbeing who is of sound mind and discretion.
In this case, there is no pretence but that the defendant, at the timeof the alleged killing of James Monroe, was of sound mind and discretion;so you are relieved of that part of the case. When you retire to your jury-room,you will first proceed to inquire from the evidence, whether or not JamesMonroe be dead. If you do not find him to be dead, that ends the case, andyour verdict must be, not guilty. If you find him to be dead, you will proceedto inquire by what means he came to his death; if by violence, then inquirewhether or not the defendant gave him the mortal wound. If you find he didnot, that ends your inquiries, and he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty.If you find the defendant gave him the mortal wound, you will then inquirewhether the killing was lawful or unlawful. In law every killing of onehuman being by another of sound mind, is unlawful, except such as the lawexcuses or justifies.
If a person when doing a lawful act, by accident kills another, it isexcusable homicide. If a person kills another on a sudden attack in defenceof himself, wife, child, parent, or servant, it is excusable homicide. Ifthe proper officer executes the sentence of the law upon another, by takinghis life pursuant to the judgment of a court legally rendered, it is justifiablehomicide. If an officer of the law in the exercise of a particular legalduty, is forcibly resisted or prevented, and, without malice, kills theone who resists, it is justifiable homicide. If a homicide be committedto prevent the forcible commission of an atrocious crime, such as murder,robbery, rape, &c., it is justifiable; but it is not so if done to punishthe offender after the crime has been committed. If you find any of thesein favor of the defendant, then your verdict must be, not guilty; but ifnone of these things exist, then the killing, if it has taken place, isunlawful in that event, you will proceed to inquire, in regard to the maliceprepense, or malice aforethought. Malice prepense, or malice aforethought,means premeditated malice, or malice thought of, before the killing occurred.It may be a meditation for a few moments only, or it may be of long standing;it may be owing to injury, real or imaginary, received from the deceased,by the accused. The law does not permit a person to take the redress ofgrievances into his own hands. Though the deceased may have seduced thedefendant's wife, as he now alleges, still he had no right to take the remedyinto his own hands. If, for seduction, the law inflicted the punishmentof death, it would not justify nor excuse the injured party from guilt,if he inflicted death without a judgment of the law to that effect, noreven with such a judgment, unless he be the officer of the law appointedfor that purpose. If, as it is contended by the defendant's attorney, hekilled Monroe in the name of the Lord, it does not change the law of thecase. A man may violate a law of the land, and be guilty, and yet, so faras he is concerned, do it in the name of the Lord. If, as it has been contendedby the district attorney, the defendant, before he left the city, formedthe design of killing Monroe; or if he so formed the design after he left,and before he met him; or if he formed it while in conversation with him,it was malice prepense or aforethought. If the deceased did seduce the defendantswife, and begat a child with her; and if for this the defendant killed him,in law, the killing was unlawful.
Should you be of the opinion in all these things, that the defendantis guilty, then the place in which the act was committed becomes material.This would not in most cases affect the general result, provided the crimebe committed within the jurisdiction of the court trying the accused.
The materiality in this case, arises in consequence of the peculiarrelationship of the United States courts with the courts of the severalStates and Territories. The jurisdiction of the United States courts isseparate and distinct from the jurisdiction of the State courts. But inthe Territories, the same judges sit in matters arising out of the constitutionand laws of the United States, as well as the laws of their respective Territories.This, to me, has been the most difficult part of the case. The Territorialcourts being of a mixed jurisdiction, partly national and partly local intheir organization, it becomes important to keep in view these two jurisdictions.When sitting as a court of the United States, we must try criminals by thelaws of the United States, and not by the Territorial laws; we must lookto them for our authority to punish violators of the law.
When sitting as Territorial courts, we must try criminals by the lawsof the Territory, and look to them for our authority to punish. If the lawsof the United States do not authorize us to punish in a case like the present,as we are now sitting as a United States court, the defendant, for thisreason, is entitled to a verdict of, not guilty.
The United States have no right to pass a law to punish criminals, exceptin those cases which are authorized by the constitution. These may be saidto be national in their character, and to extend to all places under thesole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, but they do not extendto those places within the United States, when there is an existing Stateor Territorial jurisdiction, unless they are to protect its necessary internalauthorities, such as protecting its postal arrangements, its revenue laws,its courts and officers, and the like cases. There is a large extent ofcountry between this city and the Missouri river, over which the UnitedStates have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction; and there is a part ofthis same country within the jurisdiction of the State of Missouri, andanother part within the jurisdiction of this Territory.
It is the right of every American citizen to have full and ample protectionin the enjoyment of life, liberty, and happiness; and the duty of the UnitedStates, in those places where it has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction,to extend that protecting hand over them; and the duty of the States andTerritories in their respective jurisdictions, subject to the constitutionand laws of the United States, to extend a like protecting hand. By thisyou will see that the United States, when it established the Territorialgovernments, giving them the right of legislation, created a jurisdictionwithin its own jurisdiction, but subject to its supervisory control: thereforeit has not the sole and exclusive jurisdiction within the limits of theexisting Territories.
By the 3rd section of the act of Congress, approved April 30, 1790,chapter 9, it is enacted, "that if any person or persons shall, withinany fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or any other place or district ofcountry, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereofconvicted, shall suffer death."
You see by this law, the crime must be committed within the places overwhich the United States have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction. You willlook to the evidence given you in court for the facts of the case; if youfind the crime, if any has been committed, was committed within that extentof country between this and the Missouri river, over which the United Stateshave the sole and exclusive jurisdiction, your verdict must be guilty. Ifyou do not find the crime to have been committed there, but in the Territoryof Utah, the defendant, for that reason, is entitled to a verdict of, notguilty. If, in any of these points, you entertain reasonable doubts, youmay give the defendant the benefit of these doubts. Reasonable doubts arenot merely capricious doubts, but such as reasonable men may honestly entertain.We often have painful duties to discharge, but ought not for this reasonto shrink from duty. It is better to bear with many wrong acts, than forthe accomplishment of a given object, to depart from the great and well-approvedprinciples on which mainly depend our lives, liberty, and happiness. Gentlemen,the case for the present, is committed to your consideration.