It was evidently notoriety and worldly applause Mr. Newman was seeking, and he was quite surprised and disappointed when President Young, in accepting the challenge, appointed Orson Pratt or John Taylor, whichever Mr. Newman might prefer, to take his place in the discussion. He came to meet the chief and not a subordinate. Nevertheless, after some parleying the debate was held. Elder Orson Pratt taking the affirmative of the question. The discussion began August 12, 1870, at 2 p.m. and continued during the two following days. Moderators were chosen, but the merits of the discussion were left to the public to decide. The press of the country took up the discussion, after the debate was over, and the consensus of opinion throughout the land was that Elder Pratt had proved too skilful for Dr. Newman.
Comments of the Press
The Washington correspondent of the New York Sun stated that the reverend doctor was “out of his depth” in the discussion, and that it was “plain that the apostle carried too many guns for the chaplain of the Senate.” The Boston Banner of Light declared that “The Dr. Newman, who went forth from Washington to Salt Lake City to take Mormonism by storm by flourishing his Orthodox Bible in its face, has had to come away after a pretty severe tilt with one of the leading elders, leaving his Bible behind him. Elder Pratt took his Bible out of his hands and opened it again and again to pages that taught and upheld the polygamy doctrine, reading off whole volleys of historical texts that went to establish the leading Bible characters, esteemed Saints by Orthodoxy, as regular Mormons. Dr. Newman crawfished amazingly on this part of the argument and was at last rather glad to abandon it to his Mormon opponent.” Other papers declared that force alone could settle the “Mormon Question.”
Usurpation of Authority
What the anti-“Mormon” political “ring” failed to accomplish by congressional enactment, they assumed to obtain through the actions of the governor and the judges. Judge McKean and his colleagues ignored the territorial laws enacted in 1852, which were still on the statutes, and denied to the probate courts all jurisdiction except in matters of probate. Likewise the duties of the territorial marshal and the territorial attorney general had been taken from them and placed in the hands of the United States marshal and the United States attorney. This, however, was done before the coming of McKean, but he and his associates confirmed that action. The result of these illegal proceedings was packed juries, absurd and contradictory rulings, the law becoming a mockery and justice a travesty.
The Englebrecht Case
August 27, 1870, three days before the arrival of Chief Justice McKean, an incident occurred in Salt Lake City which was ultimately to have much to do with the overthrow of his tyrannical and fanatical power. This was the legal abatement by the police of a liquor establishment conducted by Paul Englebrecht, Christian Rehemke and Frederick Lutz. These men had been repeatedly fined for infraction of the law; but on each occasion had appealed their case on the ground that the city had no jurisdiction in the case. Expecting protection from the district courts, which they had ample reason to believe would be given, the firm continued to do an illegal liquor business without a city license. On the date mentioned, the police emptied all the liquor into the ditch and destroyed all the vessels that were used in its sale.
For this action suit was brought against the officers on complaint of Mr. Englebrecht, and they were placed under bonds to await the action of the grand jury on a criminal charge.
An Illegal Jury
Judge Strickland ordered the grand jurors for that term of court selected by the United States marshal upon a writ of open venire, when the law provided that the county clerk in the presence of other officials should select them by lot. The attorneys for the city officers challenged the proceedings and filed a motion to that effect. Judge Strickland ruled that the third district court was a United States court and subject to the acts of Congress, and not the laws of the territory, the challenge was overruled and the jurors accepted. The accused men were indicted and then convicted for “a wilful and malicious destruction of property,” and were ordered to pay damages in the sum of $59,063.25, which was three times the price of the property destroyed. The supreme court of Utah affirmed the decision and an appeal was taken to the supreme court of the United States. Of this action we will speak later.