The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-19


e the act. Theserequirements are full
met in the two cases Just referred to.
:. The case of Ellen G. Clawson is diff
1erent. In the complaint, filed by her,
sell and her husband, it is alleged tina
she lis not and never has been biga
mlSs or polygamist, and is not cohab
lung and never has cOnabited with an
man except her husband, the co-plafn.
tilt herein, to whom she was lawful,
married more than fifteen years ago
and OF whom she is the first and Lawful
wife; that the plaintiff, Hiram B. Claw
son, has not married or entered into
any marriage contract or relation witt
any woman within the last six wears
and has continuously and openly re-
sided in the city of Salt Lake, in sale
Territory of Utah, for more than TWEEN
ty years last past."F
z 1t is quite consistent with these
Statements, that the husband of the
female plaintiff was at the time she
Claimed registration, bigamist, or g
polygamist, or that he was then cohab-
\ ting with more thanone woman; and
that she was cohabiting with him at the
same time. She would be, ON either
superstition, expressly disqualified
from voting by the eighth section of the
act of March 22d, 1882, and she does
HUI negative UllG IdCL.
1t cannot, therefore, be inferred that
she was lawfully qualified voter.
The cases of Murphy and Barlow are
alikein substance. In Murphy,ss case,
the allegations are, THAT he hasnot
since more than three years prior to
March 22d, 1882, marie d or entered in
to any marriage contract or relation
with any woman, or in anywise violat-
led the act of Congress approved July 1,
1862, defining and providing for the
punishment of bigamy in the Terrific
rieS, 4.Jfr. and has not yjo-
lated any of the provisions of the act
of Congress approved March 22d, 1882,
etc., so 1rrE.il and that he has
not, on or since the 22d day of March,
1882, cohabited with more than one
woman, and has never been charged
with or accused or convicted of bigamy
or polygamy, or cohabiting with more
than one woman, in any court or before
any officer or tribunal In Barlow s
case, the statement on one point is
stronger. It is, ''that he has not, on
or since the first day of July, 1862,
married or entered into any marriage
contract or relation with any woman,
or in anyWiSe violated the act of Con-
gress approved July l.. 1862, defining
and providing for the punishment of
bigamy in the Territories. That is TO
say, that, although he. may have mar
ried second wife, it was before any
law existed in the Territory prohibit
ing it, and, therefore, it could not have
been a criminal offence when COM
mitted.
But 10 both cases the complaints
omit the allegation, that, at the time
the plaintiffs respectively claimed to be
registered as voters, they were not
each, either bigamlst or a polygamist.
1t is admitted that the use of these
very terms in the complaint is not
necessary, if the disqualification law
fully implied by them are otherwise
substantially denied. That such is
their case is maintained by the appel
lantS.
The words "bigamist" and "poly-
gamist'' evidently are not used in this
statute in the sense of describing those
who entertain the opinion that bigamy
and polygamy ought to be tolerated as
practice, not inconsistent with the
good order of society, the welfare of
the race, and q true code of morality,
if such there be; because, in the pro-
visO in the ninth section of the act, it
is expressly declared that no person
shall be excluded from the polls, or be
utulSQ LIS NOJ6, Oh dCCOuUI Vi any
opinion on the subject.
1t is argued that they cannot be I'M
derstood as meaning those who, prior
to the passage of the act of March 22d,
1882, had contracted a bigamous or
pOlygamouS marriage, either in viola
ton OF an existing law, such as that OF
July L, 1862, or before the enactment of
any law forbidding it: for to do so
would give to the statute RETROSPECT
tive effect, and by thus depriving citi-
zens of civil rights, merely on account
of past offences, or on account of acts
which when committed were not Of
fences, would make il an e6 post fdctO
law, and therefore void. And the con-
clusion is declared to be necessary,
that the words pOlygamist and biga-
mist, as used in the eighth section of
the act, can mean only such persons as
having violated the first section of the
act, are guilty of polygamy; that is,
"every person VINO has husband or
wife living, who, in Territory or other
place over which the United States
have exclusive Jurisdiction, hereafter
marries another, whether married or
single, and any man who hereafter sim
ultaneously or on the same day marries
more than one woman, in Territory
or other place over which the United
States have exclusive Jurisdiction"
But there is another meaning which
may be given to these words, which,
we think, is the one intended by Con- /
gress. In our opinion, any man is
polygamist or bigamist, in the sense of
this section of the act, who, having
previously married one wife, still liv-
ing, and having another at the time
when he presents himself to claim reg
istration as voter. still maintains that
relation to a plurality of wives, al
though from the date of the passage of
the act of March ed, 1882, until the
day he offers to register and to vote, he
may not in fact have cohabited with
more than one woman. Without regard
to the question whether at the time he
entered into such relation it was a
prohibited and punishable offense, or \
whether by reason of lapse of time
since its commission prosecution for
it may not be barred, if he still main
taips the relation he is bigamist or
because that is the status
which the fixed habit and practice of
his Lying has established. He has
of wives, more than one
woman whom he recognizes as a
wife, of whose children he is the
father, and whom with
their children he uaintainSaSa family, /