In re Clawson

• Decision Date: 05 November 1887
• Citation: In re Clawson, 15 P. 328, 5 Utah 358 (Utah 1887)
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: In RE RUDGER CLAWSON

15 P. 328

5 Utah 358

In RE RUDGER CLAWSON

Supreme Court of Utah

November 5, 1887

Prisoner remanded to the custody of the United States marshal.

Mr Jabez G. Sutherland and Mr. James O. Broadhead, for the petitioner.

Mr George S. Peters, for the respondent.

BOREMANJ. ZANE, C. J., and HENDERSON, J., concurred.

OPINION

BOREMAN, J.:

The petitioner is in prison on two charges--one being for polygamy, on which he was sentenced to three and a half years in the penitentiary; and the other for unlawful cohabitation, on which he was sentenced to six months in the penitentiary.Both sentences were rendered on the third day of November, 1884.He claims to be entitled to his discharge from imprisonment by reason of deductions from his terms of imprisonment on account of good conduct.This claim is based upon both territorial and United States statutes.The territorial statute is section 3 of "An act to lessen the terms of sentence of convicts for good conduct," approved March 11, 1886, and found in the Utah Laws of 1886, p. 6.It is urged that this territorial statute is applicable by reason of the provisions in Rev. St. U.S. secs. 5543, 5544, and of 18 St. at Large, p. 479; the latter being a substitute for the above-named section 5543.These sections of the United States statutes provide that, where the territory has adopted any rules for lessening the terms of service for good conduct, such rules shall apply to United States prisoners.That is established as the general rule, therefore, applicable to United States prisoners.The territorial rule or statute which the petitioner asks to apply to his case was enacted subsequently to the day of sentence.At the time of the sentence there were territorial statutory rules upon the subject; but the statutes then existing have been since repealed, and the present ones adopted.

As we look at the matter, the sentences were rendered in view of the rules then existing, and they thus, in effect, became a part of each sentence.Although such statutes have been repealed by the legislature of the territory, the acts of Congress referred to gave vitality to them, so far as sentences rendered during their existence were concerned.If we should allow the act of the legislature passed since the sentence to control, it in effect is to say that the legislature can, after judgment, nullify the judgment, and set the prisoner free.If the legislature can reduce the sentence at all, subsequent to the sentence, it can reduce it to an unlimited extent.This would be...