The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-25


and q man is not to be sent to the peni-
Tertiary or condemned without proof
ask my lends on the other side to tAkC
this record, examine it, and show If they
can where Mr.. Cannon hiss up to the
present time violated any law of Con-
gress.
The law which the act of this session
was intended to amerd is TO be found in
section 1852 Of the Revised Statutes. Why
| did Congress amend it? Because that
law, under which Mr.. Cannon was liv-
ing, only provided that If after the pas
sage of the law, which was in 1862, any
man should marry more than one wife,
should contract marriage with two or
more women, he should be subject to the
: penalty prescribed. That law, which the
set of this session proposed to amend,
| Dies MT provide that the cohabiting with
two or more women in Utah or any other
territory sfSer the passage of that law
shall be a criminal offense.
Now, if il is true that the marriage of
Mr.. Cannon to these women-snd his
answer In the case of Maxwell UeTsuS
Cannon, referred to by Mr.. Pettibone
would go to prove as we'll as all the facts
would seem TO show that he was living
with plural wives-yet, if it is true that
he was married to more than one woman.
and the marriages were contracted prior
to the passage of the law Of Congress of
1862, whose defects the snti-polygamy
bill wa intended to remedy, then simply
cohsbitinG with plural wives since that
law took effect was no ofense.
Prior to the passage of the law of this
| sessioI, Mr.. Cannon was not living 10
III N 10 ~ ha I nit Gfof
II he has married since the passes e of
the law Of this session, he having a wife
living, or has cohabited with more than
against the law. But say there is net q
particle of proof in the record or any.
where else to that effect. The presunp-
ton is that every man is innocent Of any
violation Of the law until he is proven 10
be guilty.
The very passage Of the act Of this ses
sion shows that the construction l have
given to the prior law Is correct; that the
prior law did not provide punishment
for cohabitstion with more than one
woman. This was the very reason why
the law of this session was passed. And
the law of this session operates only upon
persons hereafter; those who marry more
than one woman or cohRbit with more
than one woman after the passage Of the
law. The former law applied only to
marriages. The law Of this session goes
further, and applies not only to those
who Rmsrry, but to those who cohsbit
with more than one woman.
Now, where is the proof that Mr.. Can
non WAS married to plural wives subse-
quent to the law of 1862? Before that
time there was no law in the territory
agsinst it That is the very reason why
he answered as he did, as was read by my
friend from Tennessee, [Mr. Pettibone],
that he was not living with plural wives
in violation Of law. The statement was
true at that time, because whatever mar
risges there were lad taken place prior
to 1852, aud the law Of 1862 could not
operate retrospectively upon marriages
that had taken place before the passage
Of that law.
Ifyou say that the bill Of this session
operates upon Mr.. Cannon, you must re-
collect that the provisions of that bill
operate only after the passage Of the bill.
The bill uses the word hereafter II
provides that sny person who hereafter
shall do so-and-so. If the charge against
Mr.. Cannon is that he has violated that
law, then you must show that he has Vio-
lated it siLce its passage.
Let me say to the conscientious gentle
men on the other side Of tle House, and
hope there are many of them, there is
not particle of proof that Mr.. Cannon
has violated this law. Besides, let me
state another fact. One person alone
cannot violate the law. It takes more
than one. There must be two or more
women TO consent to the marriage with
one man Or TO consent to cohabitation
with him under this law to make it an
ofense.
The act Of polygany ss defined by the
bill Of this session consists in the fact aud
in the intention. A great many of my
friends have read from d ctionaries in re-
gard to the definition ofpolygsmy. Why
should you go to the lexicons, TO the law
dictionaries, to Webster, or anywhere
else, when the law itself defines what
polygamy is?
Here is the definition: Every person
who, having q husband or wife living
in territory or other place over which
| the United States has exclusive lurlsdlc-
ton, hereafter msrries another, whether
married or single, or upon the same day
marries more than one, &C, shall be
guilty of polygamy." And section 8 OF
the act of this session makes cohsbltstion
With more than one woman mlsde-
meanor, subject 10 fine and imprlson-
ment. This description OF the offsnse is
clear, and it excludes every other defni-
tiOn or description OF polygamy.
Now I would like to ask the gentle
men who are to follow me to pOinV out
how Mr.. Cannon stands smenable to this
! law or has violated it. The presumption
is that every man is innocent until the
contrary is shown. And that presunp-
ton applies to Mr. Csnnon's case You
must have positive aad distinct proof be-
fore you can show him to be guilty under
this law. Suppose he was to-day III
dicted under this law, would his admis-
sion IN 1881 that he was then a polygam'
list be any proof that he has been pO-
lygsmist under this law? Besides, here
is the great fact that stsres US all IN the
face, the universal presumption that
every man obeys the law, that he Vlo'
lates no criminal law. You nave to
show it by proof if you make the charge
that Mr.. Cannon has violated the law.
This is the law which gentlemen say ne
has violated, and this Is the law which
macy of you gentlemen perhaps will base
your vote upon against Mr. Cannon.
Now, I say that since the passage Of
the act Of this session Mr.. Cannon has
not violated the law. 1t has not beer
shown that he is nov living with two OF
more women, 1t has not been shown
that since the passage of that law he has
married any woman, he having wife