The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-12-24
ON PUTTING AWAY"
Interesting Correspondence Be-
tween Jury and Judge.


The First District court Grand Jury
at Ogden fled into the room yesterday.
They reported that no indictments had
been found, but, desiring certain il.
structions, submitted the following come
nunication to Judge Powers: or
OGDEN, Utah, December %, 1856.
To the Hon. O. W. Powers, Judds of the
FIRST District Court
The grand jury most respectfully ask
10 be instructed on the following point:
Assuming that the EdmundS law con-
templates the putting away by the hus.
band OF one or more of his polygamous
wives in order that he NAV live within
the requirements of SAID law, is it neces-
sary that the act Of putting aWav
should be done publiclv2 And If 50
what would constitute reasonable pub
licity? 7 la
Very respectfully, 81
j. w. McNUTT. Foreman.
To which the following reply was
given: v la
Gentlemen Of The Grand Jury: sl
The query you put to the Court Is
substantially the, same as was asked the
Supreme Court of the United States bv
the attorney for The defendant in the
case OF the United States vs.. Angus NJ.
Cannon, which was. recently decided.
/ The Supreme Court of the United
States declined to answer the question
declined to state how man who had
polygamous wives could live and live
within the law, but said he must not
live ia q way that would, cause the out
side public to believe from lis actions
an conduct that he Mas living or asso-
eating with the wouau as his wives.
As 10 whether or not IT, act of putting
a way be done publicly, ] hiak It hardly
necessary to answer. tor, If a man puts
away his wives, ceases to live with
them or associate with them in a. man.
ner that. causes the public to believe
that he is living with them as wives.
whether it is done publicly (the putting
away, or whether it is done privately,
makes no difference. In other words,
it would make no difference as to a
mans guilt. if he should from the
house-tops declare that he had put
away his plural wives, but should con-
tinue by his actS-should continue by
his conduct-to cause the public gen
orally TO believe that he was living with
the women as a husband lives with his
wives. The whole intent and matter of
the Edmunds law is 10 Go away with the
evil example of living in polygamous
marriage-the example that is set be-
fore the publie-and whenever a man,
by holding out women as wives, by as
sOcIaung with them as husband as
sociates with his wives, by conducting
himself toward them as husband CON
ducts himself toward bis 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 continuing 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 course, before you can find an
indictment, you should be satisfied
from the evidence that the facts are
such as would cause a conviction
by trial jury; and be sat
ished, as [ say, from the facts, that
the conduct of the man is a public
reproach in other words, that it causes
the public TO believe he is as. ociating.
with women as husband associates
with his wife. The mere act of putting
away wives is OF no materiality the,
mere ACT of separation Is OF no materl-
ality unless it be followed up by separa
tien. The mere change. or chance OF
circumstances, does not make an e1
cuse. a man may. IN very pub
lie manner, in church, or in a pub
lie meeting, or at any public
place, with his wives drawn about him.
declare he had put them all away ex-
cept has lawful wife, might place them
in different houses, and still he might,
by his outside conduct, be to all intents
and purposes, living and assOeiating
with them as a husband lives and asso-
ciates with his wives. He must SO live
that he will not cause the outside world
to believe he is living with them as
wives or holding them out as wives.
] had occasion TO remark in the case
Of the United States VS.. a. III. Musser
that husband who had been divorced
from his wife would not be expected to
continue wifely relations with her, and
still he might continue friendly Tela-
tons, and while possible he would be
compelled to support her,and her child
rem. Stilbhe could act no longer toward
her as his wife. So since the passage of
this Edrnunds law, where the fact Of
polygaInous cohabitation b IS appeared,
a man cannot longer! cohabit. that is
hold out, associate with or live, as a
husband, with the women to whom he
has been previously married.-Ogden
Herald. fa. l sl----t
PERSONALS.