Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-24
JUDGE POWERS EXPLANATION.
The Grand Jury Ask for Instruc-
tions Regarding the "Patting
Away of Poiygamous
wives.

YESTERDAY afternoon ut Ogden the
Grand Jury OF the First Judicial District
came into court and informed Judge Pow
ers that they wished instructions on GER
tain points OF the Edmunds law The
following letter to His Honor and his
reply thereto, both OF which are given in
full, will explain themselves:
OGDEN, Utah, December 20, 1885.
To the Honorable o. w. Poicers, Judge o.
The First District Court:
The Grand Jury most respectfully ask to
be instructed on the following point: AS
Stunning that the Edmunds law contemplates
the putting away by the husband of one or
more of his polygamous wives in order that
he may live within the requirements OF SAID
law. is it necessary that the act of putting
away should be done publicly And II SO,
what would constitute reasonable pubnclty3
Very respectfully, j. w. MoNUTT,
Following is the reply of Judge Powers:
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: The query
YOU put to the Court is substantially the
same as was asked the Supreme Court of the
United States by the attorney for the de-
PENDANT in the case of the United States vs..
Angus M. Cannon, which was recently de-
The Supreme Court of the United States
declined to answer the question:; declined to
state how n man who had polygamous wives
could live and live within the law, but said
he must not live in way that would cause
the outside public to believe from his ac-
lions and conduct that he was living or as
sociating with the women as his wives. As
to whether or not
THE ACT OF PUTTING AWAY
Be done publicly, think it hardly neces-
sary to answer, for, if q man puts away his
wives, ceases to live with them or associate
with them in manner that causes the pub
lie to believe that he is living with them as
wives, whether it is done publicly (the put
ting away, or whether it is done privately,
makes no difference. In other words, it
would make no difference as to n mans
guilt, if he should from the house-tops de-
clare that he had put away his plural wives,
but should continue by his acts-should con-
tinue by his conduct, to cause the public
generally to believe that he was living with
the women as a husband lives with his wives.
The whole intent and matter of the Ed
munds law is to do away with
TIL. EVIL EXAMPLE OF LIVING IN poLyaA-
NOUS MARRIAGE
The example that is set before the public
| and whenever man by holding out women
as wives, by associating with them as n hus-
band associates with his wife, by conducting
himself toward them as husband conducts
himself toward his wife, he is guilty under
| the law. So the manner of putting away
has but little to do with it; it is the conduct
it is the outward appearance; it is continu-
| ing to associate or live as husband and wife
! it is causing the public to believe that these
parties are so living. Upon that act, OF
| cause, before you can find an indictment
1 you should be satisfied from the evidence
| hiatt 40 In nra cuCb Q xunulI IN n n n
viction by trial jury, and be satisfied, as
say, from the facts, that
THE CONDUCT OF THE MAN Is PUBLIC re
PRoACH;
In other words, that it causes the public tc
believe he is associating with women as
husband associates with his wife. The mere
act of putting away wives is of no materi
atty; the mere act of separation is of mt
materiality, unless it be followed mp by sep
aration. The mere change, or change OF
circumstances, does not make an excuse. A
man may, in very public manner, in church
or in a public meeting, or at any public
place, with his wives drawn about him, de-
clare he had put them all away. except his
lawful wife, might place them in different
houses and still he might, by his outside
conduct be, to all intents and purposes
living and associating with them as n hus
band lives and associates with his wives
| He must SO live that he will not cause the
outside world to believe he is living will
them as wives or holding them out as wives
had occasion to remark in the case of the
United States VS.. A. M. Musser that hus
band who had been divorced from his wife
would not be expected to continue wifely re-
lations with her, and still
HE MIGHT CONTINUE FRIENDLY RELATIONS
And while possible he would be compelled to
support her and her children. Still, he could
act no longer toward her as his wife, So
since the passage of this Edmunds law
where the fact of polygamous rehabilitation
has appeared, man cannot longer cohabit
that is, hold out, associate with or live as q
husband, with the women to whom he has
been previously married.
The engraving done on all articles
bought of us, is done by our own work.
men, and not by outside parties rs repre-
scented by other jewelers..
| JosIIN q PARK.