New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-12-15
POLYGAMY IN UTAH.
JUDGMENT BY THE U. s. SUPREME COURT.
THE CAS-: or ANGUS NJ. cANNoN-yAmoUS OTHER
DECISIONS.

In the case OF Angus M. Cannon, p1intiG IN error,
against the United States writ OF to the Supreme
Court Of the Territory of Utah. the Judgment of the
court below was affirmed. Mr. Justice atchford de-
livered the opinion Cannon was indicted under Sec
tion 3 OF the Etmunds act. which makes 1t INSIDE
meanor any male person to cOhabt with more than
one woman. The indictment charged that Angus NJ
| Cannon OF Salt Lake. continuously between June l,
1852 and February /, 1883, did unlawfuiy cohanit
with more than one woman to wit one Amanda Cannon
AMI one Clara c. Mason sometimes known as
! Clara c. Cannon" Tho defendant pleaded not
guilty and tried in April 1885, before the
District OF the Third Judicial District of Utah. re-
sutng in verdict of guilty and a sentence to pay
fno OF $500 and to be Imprisoned III the
penentiiry for six months further imprisoned
until payment Of the fine After the jury was sworn
the defendant objected 20 the giving OF any evidence on
the ground that the Indictment did not aege that the
defendant male person nor that the Combination
was with the women as wives or persons hold ont as
wives. The objection Overruei The evidence
showed that the defend INT having three wives Amanda
sarah and Clara, lived in the house with Amanda ana
Clara and their families Sarah lived else
where The defendant took his meals with each
Of tho three women every third week day, and
one OF three meals on Sunday with each.
The court instructed the jury that II they believed from
the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the de-
PENDANT lived the house with Amanda and Clara
and them the world. by his language or con
duet, 10y both. his wives, they should find him
guilty and that the law presumed the defendant IN no.
cent until proved guilty beyond reasonable
doubt The principal question was as TO
the proper construction OF section 3, depending
on the meaning Of the word cohabit." used in IT,
The opinion proceeds show that IL refers wholly 20
the relations between men and women. founded on the
existence Of actual marriages or on the holding out Of
their existence II continues:
It's the practice OF unlawful cOhabatlOn with moro
than woman that Is aimol at-a cohabiiation
classed with poiygamy aud having its outward
scmbance. It Is not the one hand merariciOu4,
unmaral intercourse with more than one
General legislation to lewd practices
l. left to the Territorial Government Nor on the other
hand docs the statute pry into the ntmacs Of the mar
relation. But it seeks not only 10 punish bigamy
and polygamy when direct proof OF the existence OF
those relations be made but to prevent man from
Haunting in the face OF the world the Ostcnaton aud
opportunities OF biglmOus household with all tine out
ward Appearances Of the continuance OF the SAM rela-
lions which existed before tue act passed ana without
to what may in tue privacy of those rela
tons. Corpacts sexual nOn-nerc0urse, easily made
aud easily broken, when the prior marriage relations
continue to exist with the occupation 81 the same house
and table and the keeping mp of the same family unity
is net u lawful substitute for the homogeneous family
which alone the statute tolcrltcs."
Aud again. lin the spirit OF the Interpretation man
cohlb.ts with more than one woman IN the sense OF
sections B. and Of the act, when. holding out to the
world two women "A hs wives by his language or con-
duct BOTH he lives in the house with them ana eats at
the table Of each portion Of his time. lie Mods two
women out the world his wives By his conduct
wAcn b"iu the recognized aui reputed husband OF each
Understood to D, by wives ami b. the son OK
o them ana by the Of thirt reputol wife. he
mlutan- the two and the children Of each, all in
house with himself aud regularly eats at the
table each au9 tne head Of the two families
The opinion then goes show mat this aiming ~
the phrase "cohapit with than utu" is In
rnus,ulucc with rccJsuiLol definition Of re worl
"cohl1t" given BY Webster AMI Worcester, namely,
Ito i've together husband aad wo" aud that II was
such au offence proved M THIS cas-" tnlt section
Of the intended 10 reach the exhibition OF al
the ,,icit 81 ntruig,.a household ant a IA niy,
twice repeated" The ctons 20 iu ctm nt because
10 doe, not da"gc that tue detan lnt WAS male person
chat he cohlDted with the Two won - wives or
persons held nIt ~ wives are oycrruel under The
criminal procedure ac<of U,l1. tho d,isnilnt hav NJ
ura d and not d'nurrol AID bcay ned 20 have UNDER
stood inIstuctly that the charge WAS against male
person and wis ot cob tbns with the wpmel a wives.
and not having been prriIIicei by the failure 50 to
u.-c. The opinion concludes with the stltemen, that
strong appeal wa, made In argument nos TO dphnb the
ruu-, o. th' tr. court, because that would require
uo,, .,nou, husband otouy to cease hy.n; with his
plural wlvet but also 10 abandon the women themselves;
ami thc supreme Court OF the UDitcd states asked
20 indicate what the conduct OF the husband toward
them must oe order 70 conform to the require o.
the law. The says that court can say advance
than that cohabtwith moro ,han ouc wo.
TIE OF the word "cOhaoil Is defined tue
dec sion Whle Congress had lestmateI the issae of
po.yglWous uJrruges bora before January 1853. IL
cit the conduct Of the toward the poyg VIE
to Doe regulated by considerations which outside of section
3. are covered by statutes ami which be
dealt with JudiciaIly when properly presented.
From tine decision OF the court Justices Miller and
Field dIsscutcd.
No. Nv lliam d. Marvel, plantn in error. against
Edwin \. Merritt, late Collector Of the Port OF New.
YORK. Appeal from the Circuit Count OF the
United states for the southern district
Of New-Yori This was suit brought to duucs
collected GA ron Ore levied at the rte Vl "a per cent
upon mineral or hitumlnons substance The pa.Rt.n
error held that duties should nave been levied at the
rate OF 10 per cent at yaIorcm as upon an unmanU-
featured article The court below directed the Jury
return IA y, rdct Tor the defendant Affirmed. Opinion
by Justice Matthew'S
appellant e. william f. FISHER As .,sor and Collector
OF Taxes Oncida tounty, idaho Territory. TINS
fc,I1t f,, io,.i' lac . y IT, 10 rr' t5n nv
the railroad PASSING through tract OF land one Ida
of Indians The mr,ad company con.
L ,siibS tno 't tnS property Ggi@S situated
Il Withdrawn trom inc jurisdiction of the Territory Inc
District 'oult held that the property SUBJECT to
taxation under the laws OF tn territory and appeal
10 tho supreme Court OF the Territory Judgment
affirmed The suprgm" Toart o the United states horls
that by force of the the land upon which the
railroad is situated 10 the United by the Indians
Nuch Lana was Wiih,rdWn from the eSelVa amt the
road aud other property Of the pauuh became subject
10 the Laws o the Territory mt, the reservation
had never existed ana ailrms the Judgment Court
below. justice Field delivered the opinion the Court
No sl-Ihe SaNonyhle Mills, Ilduun In error agt |
Thomas Russell Collector Of Customs or Boston. In
error Ia the Circuit Court OF the United STATES for the
District OF Mas-achuscts. THIS was an action brougut
10 recover duties on certain mpUrtatOus goods /
alleged 10 he Illegally assessed she .iuUn tuNolced
ms lol at more tnan - cents. but the price falling be-
fore the wool wac exported lac obtained letter from /
the United states Consul stating that the was then
selling Ion than II cents aud sought
toms officer collect duty according the statute provide
ing duty OF cents pound wool than II
cents ana cents pound wool worth than that
amount The collector refused 10 do this and suit was
brought The court says two prior acts or Congress Tx
ing tariffs declared that tile duty shah not be assessed
upon AN amount less than the invoice price, aud that
while the act under whose provisions this IL brought
changed the mole OF classification from specific to AN
nd NaoIem duty did not changeithe provisions cited
above. I'm concluding the opinion the court SAYS: "a
- N. 1 IN. L .l 49, .L-