Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-11-14
BOUNCED FROM THE BAR
Judge Zaue Renders an Opinion in
the Disarmament Case Of
Aurelius Miner.
An Ethical Discourse On POIygamy and
Unlawful C0habitati0n.
Moral Turpitude Is Involved, and the
Erudite Aurelius's Occupation
Is Gone.

| is Gone.
In the Third Judicial District Court, Uta
Territory, Salt Lake county.
In the matter of the citation of Aurelit
Miner to show cause, etc.
At the present term OF this Cour
lAurelIus Miner, an attorney and counse
lor-at-law thereof, was convicted of tn
crime of unlawful cohabitation and SCI
fenced to Imprisonment in the Peniter
tiary for the term of six months and t
! pay fine of three hundred dollars an
the costs of prosecution. Before jude
ment he was asked by the Court if it wa
his intention in the future to obey tn
laws of the United States prohibiting DC
lygamy and unlawful cohabitation, an
i not to advise other persons to break them
to which he answered that since his ma
| jority he had never said that he woul,
obey all the laws of Congress. Whel
reminded of the obligations of hi
oath as an attorney, he answered that h.
was admitted to practice law before th
Act referred to took effect; that he tool
an oath to support the Constitution of tn,
United States; that since he had reached
his majority there had been laws of tn.
United States in force which he hac
said publicly that he would not obey
and that there were other laws il
force before his time which probabl,
he would not have obeyed had he
lived during the time they were in force
that he was ready to obey all constitu
tional laws, that he differed from the
courts as to the validity of the law against
polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, that
when law reaches into the domain Of
morals he had a right to differ. When
further reminded that the Supreme Court
of the United States, the tribunal OF
final appeal provided by the Constitution
OF the United States, has repeatedly af-
firmed the statute against polygamy and
unlawful Capitalization to be valid and
and binding upon every person within
their jurisdiction, he answered that he
had said from his childhood, in the Ian
guage of Solomon, "to fear God and keen
His commandments is the whole duty of
man" that he reserved the right to de-
termine for himself the constitutionalitv
and the validity of the law in question.
A certified copy of the trial and con-
viction of the respondent and a COPY of
the questions by the Court and the an
swers of the attorney, transcribed by the
official reporter, were filed in the Court
and constitute the accusation. The
record shows the conviction of the ac-
cused, and in view of the questions put
to the defendant and of the circumstances
under which they were made, his evasiye
answers authorized the inference that he
did not intend to obey in the future the
law that he had violated in the
past. Under the circumstances the
Court entered rule against the accused
and cited him to appear on day named
and show cause why his name should not
be stricken from the roll of ATTORNEYS and
,ounsellors of the Court. On the day
lamed he appeared in person and nv
counsel, but made no answer otherwise
han by oral argument. Counsel also an
,eared at the instance and on behalf of
he Bar Association of Salt Lake City and
INSISTED on the accusation and on the dis
'arrment of the accused.
The Statutes of the Territory of Utah |
eiatlng to the matter in hand so far as it |
necessary to refer to them are as fol-
ows: The first subdivision of Section l54.
age $50, Laws of 1884, provides that an
ttorney and counsellor law NAV be
emoved and suspended by the Supreme
;ourt and by the District Courts, LIST.
pom his conviction of felony or INSIDE.
leanor involving moral turpitude, in
Inch case the record of conviction is
onclusive eyidence;;" I'd, upon "anv yio-
'tlon OF the oath taken by him or of his
utles as such attorney and counsellor -
he first clause of Section IA, page 17e
Did, provides: at is the duty of an at
'rney and counsellor, LIST, to support the
constitution and the laws of the iTnitnS
tates and OF this Territory" Section
10, page Isl Ibid. is as follows: ssThe
'oceedlngs to remove or suspend an at
rney and counsellor under the first sub
VISION OF section 154 must be taken by
e Court on the receipt of a certified
'py OF the record of conviction.
ne proceedings under the second SUBJ
VISION OF the last-named section NAV be {
ken by the Court for matters within its &
lowledge, or may be taken upon the in 1
rmation of another. I
In view of the facts and the law, the e
estlon arises, should the name of the
cused be stricken from the roll of at q
'neys and counsellers of this court? If C
crime of unlawful cohabitation in c
Ives moral turpitude, his conviction of q
elf is sufficient cause. This presents e
further question, is the conduct which St
lstltutes the crime immoral? If man
es with two or more women in the d
Dit ana repute OF marriage such con- 81
Ct constitutes the crime of unlawful CO. ct
oltatlon. The effects of the crime upon as
lety are essentially the same as those of
poiygamy. A man who has a lawful bl
living commits the latter offense a
EN- he formally marries another wom- ne
and he commits the former offense ii:
en- he associates with two or moro m
men as their husband, or apparently tn
such husband. Both crimes usnallv m
st together in this Territory, although of
secutlon for polygamy is often barred an
the statute OF limitations. Assuming. ria
q, that both crimes are essentially the thu
e from the standpoint of morals. in rel
uch as the definition of polygamy is is
e simple and better understood. I in
consider that crime from a moral fro
It of view. an,
esSSAp ehut tiiC Sense OF SUI
civilized world has condemned polvo- ass
as wrongful and immoral. de,
cond-I assert that polygamy violates wo
settled moral principles. knowing iste
the various ethical schools NAV diff, Au
some respects, and that individuals goo
Differ as to the extent of moral tur- hip
lie involved in this crime, will point est,
certain well-settled moral rules or WI
which this crime violates, and which wal
Una. IL Is grossly immoral. While has
i philosophers differ as to the source VIII
neal rules, they do not disagree as to due
existence or as to their application am,
binding effect upon human conduct of
e one school of ethics asserts that the
1 truths are expressions of the Divine effe
revealed in sacred writings or in the rem
IN conscience, and another school owe,
IS state enactments the source of ity.
and wrong, and third believe that And
is endowed with an innate sense by NAV
I. i