The New York herald., 1878-11-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

UTAH PoLYGAMY cAsE-ARGUMENr IN THE CLAF-
LIN SILK sUrTs-A REMINIsczNcE OF THE WAR
WASHINGTON Nov. Is, 1873.
The following were the proceedings in the United
States Supreme Court to-day
No. $50 tassigned). George Reynolds plaintiff in er
against the United States in to the Supreme
Court OF utah-Ihe argument in this case was con-
the prisoner who further developed the points raised
yesterday in the laters defence by bis associate Mr.
Sheeks. He contended that the federal government
has right to interfere with the purely domestic
relations Of the inhabitants Of State Territory;
that it is not the custodian OF the of country
and can more rghtfully prescribe certain
form Of marriage than it instruct parents in
their duties and relations TO their children Bgamy
he urged; or polygamy Is not an offence under the
common law it Is artificial crime created by legis
lative enactment and involving when practsed
religious duty, moral guilt. He denied the right
closed with appeal to the Court to award
justice to the prisoner. however Obscure he might
be a. an individual. and however austerely they
might personally regard the marital relations into
which he had entered.
THE cLAYLM CASES.
Nos. 3Ss and Ss9 assigned. The United States
plaintiff in error. Horace B. Clahin ct al.-In
error to the Circuit Court Of the United
These two cases. which brought origin
ally in the United States District. Courts. raise
precisely the same questions of law. It is alleged
the part Of the plaintiff in error that
the defendants at various times from December
,s51 to Novs%bsr 1871. knowingly received bought
ported silk and thereby made themselves liable for
infracton Of the act of 1923, chapter 49, I'd
tion and of that of 1866. chapter 20l 4th section.
The counsel for the defendants demurred to all
the counts Of the plaintiffs declarations. the
grounds
FSrxt-That the second section Of the act Of 1923
had been repealed the act OF 1895 before the trans
actions complained Of occurred.
Second-That under the fourth section Of the act of
1886 no civil action could be maintained for
the fnes which, aternatively Jointly
with imprisonment. constituted the penalty Of
the crime named therein. The demurrers
sustained in the District Court, and afterward
in the United States Circuit Court, and are now
brought here upon 4nai appeal II the judgment Of
the lower courts is affirmed 1t will be decisive of the
whole class OF similar II not the will go
back for trial upon the facts.
1t argued here by Solicitor General Phillips and
Attorney General Devens the United States and by
Joseph H. Choase, of New York. for Cladin Co.
A CASE OF DIsLOYALTY.
No. &c. Daniel A. Beckwith and Gilman Henry plain
tis in against Andrew J. Bean-In to the
Circuit Court Of the United States for the district of
vermont-This cause has already been once before
this Court. and is reported in 18 Wallace. p $40.
was an action for assault and battery
and alleged illegal imprisonment Of Bean
for seven months by United States provost mar
sha and hts assistant during the rebellion the
charge Of disloylty and aording aid and comfort
the enemy by enticing soldiers TO desert from
the army OF the United States. After be-
s prem. so Court L was ss assin tried tried and and
verdict rendered in favor Of defendant in error
with $4,000 damages II now comes up = second
time on writ Of error. The argument was opened by
Solicitor General Phillips for plaintiffs in
Adjourned until Monday, twelve o'clock.