79 forms of acute mental suffering, private judgment would speedily come to be as serted as against the general dissuadent sentiment and the paganistic attitude would be revived. . . . The contention of Cato and Air. Lecky is certainly valid to the extent that one who attempts suicide should not be treated as a criminal. . . . He should be classed not as a criminal, but as an unfortunate person amenable to temporary depriva tion of liberty. He should be made subject to restraint in the discretion of a magistrate not exceeding a brief, definite period. The Loti1 Register has this to say of "The Reed Smoot Case": Smoot's case seems to be different from Roberts', in that the Utah Senator is said not to be a polygamist. But it is claimed, and not denied, that he associates with open and avowed polygamists, and is an apostle of a church which does not condemn polyg amy, and whose decrees are held paramount in authority to the laws of the State or nation. When Smoot's credentials were first presented, they were referred with many pro tests against the admission of the man, to the Senate Committee on Privileges PU ' Elections. This committee has been taking testimony in the course of its investigation, and before it has appeared the president of the Mormons, evidently a fellow of excellent pith, "Fate tried to conceal him by naming him Smith." But his barn-yard rooster pride. and, it must be admitted, a downright ten dency to truth telling are destined to make him historical. The Senate Committee is said to be "shocked" by his self-revelations. Such un reserved and unnecessary truth-telling must certainly affect peculiarly a body of public men to whom as a class truth is so precious as not to be used on all occasions and with everybody. But this man Smith has owned up to co habiting, since 1890, when Utah became a State, w;ith five polygamous wives and dur ing that time to have become the father of eleven children. What these things have to
do with Smoot has not been made to appear as yet, except that Smoot is Smith's friend and colleague in the Mormon Church. This fact alone is deemed by some as sufficient to disqualify Smoot from holding the office of Senator. It may be, but to condemn a Senator for the company he keeps or for the religious or irreligious or immoral views he entertains would open a Pandora's box of evils. The word "qualifications" is capable of an almost infinite variety of construc tions, under pressure of political, religious and social considerations. Arbitrary action lies that way. A colored man might be found disqualified per se. The case is not the same as if a man had been proved guilty of a crime known to the law. Then evidently the Senate or House could expel. Yet the Senate allowed an em bezzler to sit in it for six years. Smoot has not yet been proved guilty of anything more than keeping bad company. But may not other Senators be guilty of the same of fense, and "shall the pot call the kettle black?" That public opinion would uphold the Senate in unseating Smoot is undoubted, but public opinion is not the law and unless the Utah Senator is expelled legally the precedent will come back to plague us. Law Notes for March quotes the following tale, rightly adding that, if true, it "furnishes food for thought." The Louisville Courier-Journal prints a piece of news which is an interesting supple ment to the trial of Lieutenant-Governor Tillman for the murder of Editor Gonzales in South Carolina. It is likewise an instruc tive commentary upon our jury system and the practice of criminal law. A Southern traveling man for a Cincinnati house is re ported to have given the following account of the rather unique method adopted to se cure a jury that would be sure to acquit : "As soon as it was known in what county of South Carolina the case would be tried, men representing themselves as agents for a pict ure enlarging establishment made their ap pearance in that county. There were a doz en of them, and each man carried with him
