Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1857-01-04
JUDICIAL WAR AGAINST POtYGAMY

said to have been delivered to the Grand Jury by
Judge DRUMMosD at the July term of the First
Judicial District Court for Utah Territory held at
Genoa, in Carson county. Some Of cur contem-
porsries, we observe, are disposed to question the
authenticity Of this charge because the restraining
law therein cited is not to be found in the "Revs-
ed Statutes OF the United States" The ascribng |
Of it to those volumes was no doubt an error of
the reporter. The law cited may be found, serbia
tim ct Rtsratina, at the 18th page of the "Acts
Resolutions, and Memorials passed st the several
Annual Sessions by the Legislative Assembly of
the Territory Of Utah. published at Salt Lake
City in 1855 by Joseph Cain, public printer"
Judge DRUAnIoED, after reoiting the thirty third
section of this law, which prescribes for lewdness
and adultery penalty of from six months to ten
years imprisonment, or fine Of not less than one
hundred nor more than thousand dollars, or both,
urgently called the attention of the Grand Jury to
their duty in the premises. The following is an
| extract from his charge;
"YOu will remember, gentlemen, that you have
/ each taken q solemn oath before God and these
/ witnesses that you would true presentmeut make
] Of all such matters and things as should be given
] you in charge or otherwise come to your knowl-
| edge touching the present service This section,
therefore, give you in charge with an ardent de-
sire that you will cast off all priestly yokes of op-
preston and studously and honestly do your DUTY
without fear, favor, or affection, wholly unbiased
GAS there is no statute law in this Territory,
regulating marriage, or touching the subject di.
reCly or indirectly, II only remains for me to say
| that all those ceremonies by the people of this
Territory called sealing are anything other in the
eyes Of the law tbau u legal marriage ceremony.
"In the foregoing section the Legislature has
thought proper to pass a stringent law of a crmi-
nal character for the punishment OF lewdaess.-
This indeed was wise and humane on the part Of
those legislators, aud to hs it seeing that the Leg
islature thereby intended to provide a remedy for
the CORE ZION Of that crying and most loahsome,
barbarous cruel black, and degrading evil which
seems to be one OF the csrdBsl doctrines of the
church prominent in power IN this Terri orY polyg-
amy or at least, if they did not intend il, they
have virtually done what should have been done
many years since, The law is found in the book
aud you as well as are solemnly bound to give
it force AMI utility.
at is wholly useless and MONDAY madness for
! the Legislature to pass laws, and for the Federal
Government to send judges aud attorneys here to
execute those laws, If the mandate of one man.
clothed with priestly power and wholly unlearn-
ed in the science Of the law, is to be permitted to
thWsrt not only the action Of the Legislature Of
the Territory, but boldly and openly bid open de
fanCe and spOrtve rebellion against the Federal
authorities OF the United States and dictate to
grand juries when to find bills of indictment and
when not. These things cannot be endured in a
Republican Government All these men, there.
fore, who have a multiplicity of women residing
with Them at the same house subjects for your
| investigation.
Il have already instructed you that there is no
law in this Territory authorizing the Issuing of
marriage license, or authorizing any one to perform
MARI age CeTemOn es either in out of the church.
and, much as you may regret to do 50, it is never.
f theless your duty to respect the law Of the land
| aud prefer bills Of Indictment against all such as
have not been legally married 10 some other coun
, | try, and particularly when two or more women
= are living with the same man. These instances
4 | are too Ci.en seen and too much Ell encouraged by
3 the church here to insure respect from the civil
- zzd world, either at home or abroad; and ever
e barblrous minds IN your own country revolt 81
r the sIckering and truly heartrendiBg spectacle 0
r. the masses of this Territory.
% "Dlty follows you gentlemen, in all the walk
Of life, at home and abroad, in the family circle,
the balot-b0E, at your daily christian devotions
e and prominently Lere, where the interest Of th
r crushed and down troddan appeal in thunder tone
Tor relief at the hands Of the laws"
r OF Toe following lie tr from Judge BATTLE, 0
the supreme court OF North Carolina, in leiaucI
t. an sIlrgd opinion Of that court in regard TO tn
It competency of sha members Of the Universals
Il Clurch as Wire SIS, will b. rad with interest
}, TIE letter is adde's ed to the editors Of the Ma
;. t'oza7 LteIgsncr:
q, CHAPEL HUI, December %, 1856.
GENTLEmEy: In your paper of the Iltb insan
d l see it aleu that "thG supreme court of Nortl
e Carolina has conf med the dec-i0u of Judge NJ N
n lv, Il at members Of the Universsist Church ar
in, Of
ing to the laws Of the State" THIS is q mistake
which have no doubt you will cheer.uly correct
J. Ia the case Of Blown vs.. Beaver, reported in
ls JOues's Law Rep, SIG, the supreme court, in al
2r Cp.aiOu delivered by myself, Do indeed affirm th
judgment Of the court below by Judge u ~
but it was upon point which rendered uuLe-e5
Be- sary review of bis decision upon the competrLc
/ OF the witness. The question arose upon toe pro
e. bate Of a script which the judge permitted to b
established as a hoogTa2h will after he had rejlc
ed one OF the subscribing witnesses as incOmDe
T. tc-t n the ground Of his being UniveTssst-
- Tie supreme court, in the opinion 10 which I ha7
Is referred held his to be proper, and conclude
:; thus: This renders the gu, suon as 10 the com
-, potency II one Of the subscribing witnesses u0ns
II csssary, and makes it improper for US to expses
IS al opinion uTnl it,
e, am, very respectfully, &C.
up WILL H. BATTLE
VI "a h2AFE-LAh SAaE--- ~ ute d EIaige auu move
= case wss recently decided by the Kentucky Cour
n Of Appeals. The facts are these: Ellen Bell TIT
appellant, msr-ied SsmueIBslI, her son ip-law Il
died leaving Ellen, his widow, and several chi
dren, by the daughter Of Ellen The heirs c
n Samuel refused to assign dover to Ellen, where
IS upon she brought suit against the heirs in tn
i Tdmbls Circuit Court. Judge Prior, then prssi
1t ding, thought the marriage was prohibited by IT,
Y, statutes Of 1893 and therefore void, and be dis
; missed the suit of Ellen. From this decision FL
g len appealed The Court of Appeals held frs
&c that the marriage between a woman and her son
IS in-!aw was not prohibited by the act of 1893
It Second. that the act did prohibit the marriage
IL SILL under the provisions Ct the act the marrae
was ouly Uoi3aj7e and the wife was entitled Il
}. dover unless sentence Of divorce was declared
= and further tina: the sentence Of divorce could 10
be declared after the death Of either of the parties
o wbelpon they reverse the decision Of Judge Pryor
and say that Ellen, the mother in law-wifs mus
4 have dover
The FLORIDA INDTANs-It has recently beef
sFo frof the E,varrr7aut h o1,rtoI r.l.r, E.,