, 1875-03-05

tile welfare Of the wicked ones that they
should retain membership iu the organiza-
ton.
-@-@@.-.-----|
THE YOUNG DIVORCE.
4 day or two since VIC commented upon
the decision Of Chief-Justice MoKrAN, of
utall, awarding alimony and sustenanco,
peadents lite, to ANN Et1zA, who las brought
an action for divorce against BRIGHAM YOUNG,
and took occasion to present some Of tho
catholics OF tho case. The decision itself
having como to hand, we aro enab'el to pre-
sent somo Of the faeta in tho case which will
DO Of general interest, as tho case ia test
one, which opens up vista Of possibilities
pleasant enough to the Prophets other wives.
but discouraging to tho Prophet himself. It
appears from tile complaint Of ANN EItzA
that SHE Is MI Illinois woman, lnv-
ing been born in Nauvoo, and that
ghe has been resident of Utah
sinca 1913. It was on tho 9Th day Of
April, 1868, she being then but 25 years Of
ago, that sho married BRIGHAM Youso, and
at TINT time SHE had two children, the issue
Of aformor marriage. During tho period Of
year after tho marriage Bn1ornM lived mud
cohabited with her, contributed to her main.
tonnnce, aud treated her with some degroo of
kindness and attention. During this period
she alleges TINT sho was dutifu1 and obod-
ent wife, and discharged with fidelity all the
duties incumbent npon a married. woman.
Novcrthelcss, at tho end of this year, for
some cAuse unknown to ANN ELIZA, BRIGHAM,
regardless Of all his marital obligations, COM
mcnccd toward her systematic course of
neglect, unlsindness, cruel and inhuman
treatment, ending in IN absolute desortion Of
her.
To this complaint BINGHAM has much to
aay in reply, Of curious and ingenious
character. Firat, h0 Denies that he was mar
ried TO ANN ELIZA in April, 1868, as aho
not his wife, because in April, 1868, sho was
married in Utah to one JAaHs L. DEE, who Is
still living, aud from whom she has mover
been divorced, although ho supposed she had
boon ut tho time. After having denied tho
marriage, then he proceeds to affirm it by
claiming that in April, 1868, tho date to
which ANN ELIZA refors, a ceremony WAS per-
formed which united him in what is known
as celestial or plural marriage, in accordance
with the doctrines and usagea Of tho
"Church Of Jesus Christ OF I.atter.Day
gnints," and TINT ho was novor mar
ried to ler in any other sense than
tho celestial or plural. An there is, however, in
the ordinance passed. by the Territorial Logis-
lative Assembly incorporating the Church
provision that tho Church haa tho right ITO
solemnize marriage, compatible with tho
revelations OF Jesus Christ" tho willy
BR1oux,1 seeks to break tho binding forco Of
tho marriage by alleging that be was mar1;ed
Jan. 10, 1884, at Kirtland, O., to blAnY ANN
AsoE11 by a minister Of tho Gospel, and
that, although sllo ceased to be m AsoE11 at
that timo, sllo was Ills wife and has bocn so
over since, and therefore, MARY ANN being
his wife, Ann ELIZA cannot be. In other
words, Bn1ouAM not only charges Ann ELIZA
With felony, but confesses himself guilty Of
ono also.
Upon these points urged BY BRIGHAM, the
Court held substantially as follows: That
where ANN ELIZA alleges that certain mar.
riage took place in 1868, and Dn1auAM do.
MICS 1t because certain other marriage took
place In 1863, the denial is bad in law, and
ANN R11zA's allegation IL admitted, and that
where the defendant (Youao) both aonles
and admits IN allegation OF the plaintiff (ANN
ELlzA) 1t amounts In law to All admission
thereof; or, logically sta.ed, a negative and
AL Affirmative mako m affirmative. 2. That
a marriage solemnlzed in Uta1l, either accord
Ing to tho for1ns Of the "Ohurch " OF which