Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-12-15
LAST HOPE GONE.
The 4. ;. supreme Court SU-taias enc
Anti-PolySamy Law.

The 4. - Supreme Court SU.taias 'Ns
Anu-PoIysamy Law.
WAsaISGrOS, December 1.-THE So
preme Court OF the United S;s.es to-day
decided the case o! Angus NJ. Cannon vs.
the aited States for writ in error from
the Supreme Cour; Of U;ah involving au
important point under the Eimnads AMI
Polygamy act. The complainant was
CHARGED With uulastIl cohabitalion, was
convicted in the lower court aad fined
$500 and sentenced to six months impn2
onneGt. which verdict Was confirmed by
the higher court Of the territory, and By
the Sup,eme Court OF the nited States
to-day. The Supreme Court also con
irmed the rulings OF the lower court that
eohabitation With women as wives or the
claim Of married relation with more than
one woman was violation OF the Law.
The principal question was as to the
proper construction OF section ., depended
on the meaning OF word "cohaoI ss used
IN it.
Judge B!atchtord in his opinion says:
The Court properly charged the jury that
the defendant Was 10 De found guilty II he
lived in the same house with two women,
and ate az their respective tables sae.thlrd
Of his time or Whereabouts, and held them
on. % III world by MS ian
guass or conduct, or both as his
s,ygs and that il was not
necessary, 1t should be shown that he and
the two women or either OF them occupied
The same bed Or slept ia the same room
Or that be had sexual intercourse with
either OF them
Ii IS the practice of unla~tui cohaOI;s
,iou With more than one woman that ls
aimed at cOha5itatiCu c!assed with pol
vgamy and hag+ug i;s outward semblance
II is not on the one hand meretric!ous and
unnatural intercourse with more than
one woman that general legislation as to
lesi practices applies to the territorial gov
eminent. nor on the other hand does the
s,adute pry into the intimacias OF the mar
rage relstion, but ii sees not only 10 pun
ish 5gsny and polygsmy when direct
proof OF existence Of those relations can
De made, but to prevent man from Haunt
ing in the face Of the world the ostentstion
and opportunities OF bigsmous household
with ell the outward appearances OF
continuance OF the came relations
which existed before the act was
passed without reference to what may oc-
eur in the privacy of those relations. And
again in the spirit OF the Interpretation
man cohsbits with more than one woman
in the sense OF sections 3, and OF the act
when holding out to the world two women
as his wives, by his language or conduct or
both, he lives 10 the house with them and
eats at the table OF each a portion OF hla
time. although he does not occupy the same
bed or sleeps in the ga me room with other
OF them, or actually have sexual inter
course with either OF them He holds two
women out to the world as his wives by his
conduct when he maintains the two ~lFes
and acts as the head Of the two families
The opinion gives the definition OF the
word cohs5it and says that section : OF
the act was intended to reach the eShio''
ton ot all the iudicis Of marriage a
household and family twice repeated.
The objections to the indictment, be-
cause il does not allege that the defendant
was a male person, nor that he cohsniteG
/ with the women as wives, or as persons held
ont as wives are oVsrruied under the
criminal procedure act OF Utah, and being
held 10 have understood distinctly that the
charge was against male peraoar ana
was OF cohabitug with the women "a
wives and not having byeu preIudlced oy
he failure 10 so aliege.