Morning journal and courier., 1881-04-06
SonrnaI arlo Courier.
Wednesday Morning, April 6, 1881.
ANOTHER MORMON VICTORY.

ANOAAAA& AOG&nAoA tASAO0 John Miles, Mormon, was indicted fol bigamy in the Third District Court of Utah at Salt Lake City A trial was had and the jury rendered verdict of guilty. Miles thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court ot the Territory, where the judgment of the District Court was affirmed He then ap- pea1ed to the Supreme Court of the United States upon the following assignments of CT TOT: CD That adherents of the Mormon faith were unlawfully excluded from the jury. CD That the declarations of Miles
 were admitted as proof of his marriage.
 6. That the testimony of the alleged sec-
 ond wife was admitted to prove the marriage
 of Miles to wife No. l.
 A decision in the case has been rendered
 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 It is found that there was no error in exclu-
 ding adherents of the Mormon faith from
 the jury On this point the Court say: ''It
 is evident from the examination of the jurors
 on their uoir dire that they believed that
 polygamy was ordained of God, and
 that the practice of polygamy was
 obedience to the will of God. At common
 law this would have been ground for princi-
 pal challenge of jurors of the same faith. It
 needs no argument to show that jury com
 posed of men entertaining such a belief
 could not have been free from bias or preju-
 dice on the trial for bigamy of a person who
 entertained the same belief, and whose of
 fense consisted in the act of living in polyga- my. But whether the evidence of bias was sufficient or not, it was SO found by the triers, and that was conclusive" It is also found that the District Court committed no error in admitting the declarations of Miles to prove his first marriage.
 But it is found that the court below did err in allowing Caroline Owens, the second wife, to give evidence against Miles concerning his marriage with Emily Spencer, the first wife. The law of Utah declares that a husband shall not be witness for or against his wife, or a wife for or against her husband The marriage of Miles with Caroline Owens was charged in the indictment and admitted by him upon the trial. The fact of his previous marriage with Emily Spencer was therefore, say the Court, the only issue in the case, and that was contested to the end of the trial. The opinion concludes as follows ''Until the fact of the marriage of Emily Spencer with Miles was estab- lished Caroline Owens was ? pa5ma .tacte his wife, and she could not be used as a wit ness against him. Nearly all the authorities agree that as long as the fact of the first mar riage Is contested the second wife cannot be admitted to prove it. It is made clear by the record that polygamous marriages are so celebrated in Utah as to make the proof of polygamy very difficult They are conducted in secret, and the persons by whom they are selemnized are under such obligations of secrecy that it is-almost impossible to extract the facts from them when placed upon the witness stand. If both wives are excluded from testifying to the first marriage as in the opinion of this court they should be, under the existing rules of evidence, testimony sufficient to convict for polygamy in Utah is hardly attainable. This is not, however, a court. It must administer the law as it finds it. The remedy is with Congress by enact ing such a change in the law of evidence in Utah as to make both wives witnesses on in dictments for bigamy. For the error above indicated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah is reversed and the case remanded for new trial"
 Much interest has been felt in this case by the opponents of polygamy, who have hoped that the conviction of Miles in the Utah courts would hold water But this decision makes it plain that the Mormons have little cause for fear until there is a change in the laws under which they can be tried. The New York World asks if the Republicans in Congress ought not at least to initiate stat ute declaring that the publicly living togeth- | sr of two persons as man and wife in Utah l shall constitute sufficient evidence of their | marriage for all purposes of evidence under | Federal prosecutions for bigamy. We think they should |