Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-05-20
ANOTHER.

being made to enforce the Edmunds law,
and If is meeting with some success. On
"Wednesday last Mr. J. d. Jones, OF Malad,
was brought before the Judge OF the Third
Judicial District of Idaho to be sentenced,
he having previously plead guilty to the
charge of unlawful cohabitation. When
the Court asked Mr.. Jones If he
had anything to say why SEN
tence should not be passed
upon him, he replied that Mr.. ii. W.
Smith, one of his attorneys, would ad-
dress the Court in his behalf. Mr.. Smith
stated what the circumstances in MIR.
Jones case were: that he married his
plural wife so long ago as 1896 before
Congress had taken any action in regard
to polvgamy in the Territories. This OF
itself is unusual, as the majority OF
plural marriages in Utah have
taken place since the passage OF
the law of 1862. But when the
Edmunds law was passed Mr.. Jones
wished to comply with that also, and as
it contained a provision against cohablta-
tion. he ceased to consort with his plural
wife, thinking he was thereby complying
with the law. All this Mr.. Smith told the
Court, and said that it was such men as
Mr.. Jones who were entitled to the leni-
ency. which the law allows the Court to
indulge. The remarks OF District Attorney
White were much in the same strain also.
Chief Justice Morgan questioned the de-
! fendant, asking him if it was his inten-
ton to obey the law in good faith; to
which Mr.. Jones replied that it was. This
being the case, Mr.. Jones was merely
fined, imprisonment not being included
| in the sentence. There is nothing re-
markable in the course Mr.. Jones pur-
sued, save that he was perfectly willing
to do in the future what he had en-
deavored to do in the past--obey the
law. He had done this according
to the best of his knowledge when the
Edmunds law was passed, but he had
misconstrued that law, and when that
law was construed by the proper authori-
ties, he was perfectly willing to obey the
law in accordance with that construc-
ton. Mr.. Angus NJ. Cannon was in
dicted on the same charge in the Third
District Court OF Utah, but when called
before the Court for sentence, he could
make no promise as to his future con-
duct, saying to the Court, "For me to
state what l will do in the future-give
assurance that will do that which in an
hour | may find impossible-I cannot"
A very strange statement for man to
make who had just told the Court how
he loved this country, and had sworn al
legiance to it; but stranger still when it
is recalled that on the 22d OF April last,
Mr.. Cannon, in an interview which was
published in the Tribune of that date,
told the gentleman who interviewed him
in regaed to the decision OF the Supreme
Court in the Clawson case, that he was
sorry on account OF the country.
know that the Edmunds law is
unconstitutional, bat Chen it passed told
By children thGt I lUOuId liUe aUithin the
! lar, and had nag rooms fitted up pur-
poSely to do 500 If Mr. Cannon was so
determined to live within the law that he
fitted up a room specially for that pur-
pose, why was he not willing to do so in
future? 1t would only have been con-
sistent in him, and he would only
have been doing in the future what
he tried to do Immediately
on the passage Of the Edmunds law. But
Mr.. Jones is willing to try and do in the
future what he tried to do in the past, and
that is, obey the law; and for this he
should be honored. If any one thinks he
will not, they have a mistaken idea of
Mr.. Jones, as he is the same gentleman
who some years ago spent more money to
get possession of an Office to which he
had been elected than the salary of the
Office was worth for his whole term; and
he succeeded in getting his office. He
made his fight for it because he believed
he was entitled to it under the law, and he
thought the law should be supreme; and
he will just as persistently obey the law
as he fought for his Office. Our sentiment
is, Honor to j. D. Jones, of Malad