The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-12-15
COLLABORATION.
The Supreme Court SuStainS
Judge Zane.
DECISION RENDERED MONDAY.
Justices Miller and Field Dissent =
The Opinion OF the First
Named Judge.
Cannon Case Decided.


WASHINGTON, December IA. - The
Supreme Court, to-day, affirmed the
judgment of the Supreme Court OF
Utah, in the case of Angus NJ. Cannon
plaintiff in error, against the United
States. Cannon was indicted under the
Edmunds act for unlawful cohabitation
with more than one woman. The
defendant objected to the giving of any
evidence on the ground that the indict-
ment did not allege that-he was a male
person, nor that cOhabitation was with
the women as wives. The objection
was 5verruled and a verdict of guilty
returned, and the defendant sentenced
to pay fine of $500, and to be i'm
priSOued for six months, and to be
further imprisoned till the payment of
the fine.
The principal question was: The
proper construction of Section 3, de-
pending on the meaning of the word
'cohabit." as used in it, and Judge
Biatchford, in his opinion. says: THE
court properly charged. the jury that
the defendant was TO be found guilty,
if he lived in the same house with the
three women and ate at their respective
tables one-third of his lime, or there
abouts and held out 10 the world by
his language, or conduct, all as his
wives, and that it was. not necessary
it should be shewn that he and the
three women, or either of them, occu-
pied the same bed, or slept in the
same room, or that he had sex
ual intercourse with them. +"
1t is the practice of unlawful cohabita-
ton with more than one woman, that
is aimed at, a cohabitation claSSed with
polygamy and having its outward sem
blance. 1t IS not on the one hand
meretricious unmarital intercourse
with more than one woman-general
legislation as to lewd practices is left to
the Territorial GOyernment-nor on the
other hand does the statute pry into
the intimacies of the marriage re-
lation, but ii seeks not only to
punish bigamy and polygamy when.
direct proof of the existence of these
relations can be made, but to
prevent a man from Haunting in the
face of the world the ostentation and
opportunities of bigamous household,
with all the outward appearances OF the
continuance Of the same relations which
existed before the act was passed and
without reference 20 what may occur
in the privacy of those relations.
And again, in the spirit of the inter
probation, a man cohabitS with more
than one woman. in Sec ions 3, and
8 of the act, when holding out to the
world two women as his wives, BY
language or conduct, or by both
he lives in the house with them and
eats at the table of each portion of
his time. Although he doesfnot occupy
the same bed or sleep in the same room
with either of them, or actually has
sexual intercourse with either Of them,
he holds two women out to the
world as his wives. by his conduct.
when he maintains two wives and the
children of each, all IN the same house
with himself, and regularly eats at the
table of each and acts as the head OF
the two families"
The opinion gives Webster's definition
of the word "cohabit, and says Section
3 of the act was intended to reach the
of all indicia of marriage, a
and family twice repeated.
Objection to the indictment, because 1t
does not allege that the defendant was
a male person, nor that he cohabited
with two women as his wives, or as per-
soas held out as wives, are oYerruled
under the criminal procedure act Of
Utah, defendant having pleaded and
not demurred, and being held to have
distinctly that the charge
was against the male person, and was
for with cohabiting with the women
as wives, and not having been prelu-
diced by the failure to SO allege."
The opinion concludes with the state
ment that strong appeal was made IN
the argument not to uphold the rulings
OF the trial court, because that would
require the polygamOus husband not
only to cease living with his plural
wives, but also to abandon the women
themselves, and the Supreme Court of
the United States was asked to indicate
what the conduct of the husband to-
wards them must be In order to con-
form TO the requirement OF the law. The
law saws no court can say in advance
what particular state of things will be
lawful, further than that, man must not
cohabit with more than one woman In
the sense of the word "cohabit" as de-
fined; while Congress had legitimatized
the issue of polygamous marriages. born
before January 1st. 1888, it had
left the conduct OF the man
towards the polygamous wife to
be regulated by Considerations "nicn,
outside of Section 8, are not covered by
the statute and which must be dealt
with judicially when properly pres
ented.
From the decision of the Court, JUS
tees Miller and Field dissented. JUS
tice Miller, in his dissention of the
decision, SAID: ''I think the act ofCon-
gress, whenprohibiting cohabitanonwith
more than one womans meant unlawful
habitua! sexual intercourse. IL 10 IN
my opinion a strained constru' non OF
a highly penal statute to hold thaS the
men can be guilty under thai statute;
sexual connection. / know of no in
stance in which the word .eohabita-
ton" has been used to describe a Grim
inal offense, when it did not imply
sexual intercourse.