Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1885-12-15
MoRMONIsM.
Fine Lines Drawn on the
Polygamy Question
A. NJ. CANNON FOUND GUILTY.
The Difference Between Polygamy
and Cohabitation : Justices
Field and Miller Dissent.

specidt TO the Herald the Associated Press
wAsHIaoros, December 1.-THE su-
preme Court to-day affirmed the ludg'
ment of the Supreme Court Of Utah In
the case Of Angus M. Cannon, plaintiff
in error against the United States. Can
non was indicted under the Edmnnds act
for unlawful cohabitation with more than
one woman The defendant objected to
the giving of any evidence on the ground
that the indictmen did not allege that
ne was male person nor that the CO.
habitatiou was with women as wives.
The objection was overruled and ver-
dict Of guilty returned and the defend
ant sentenced to pay fine of $500 and
to be imprisoned for six months, and to
be further imprisoned till the payment
Of the fine.
The law says that no court may say 10
advance what particular state OF things
will be lawful, further than that man
must not cohabit with more than one
woman. in the sense of the word "cO-
habit as dafned. While Congress had
iegitimated tns issue OF polyganous mar
riaQes born before January |, 1883, II
had left the conduct of a man towards
q poiyramous wife to be regulated by
considerations which, outside Of Sec, .,
are not covered by statute and which
must be dealt with judiciaily when
properly presented.
The principal question was as to the
Drouer construction OF section 3, depend
inp on the meaning Of the word ''cohab-
its AS ,ssed in it, and Judge Rlatchford
IN his opinion says: 'eThe court prop
erIy charged the Jury that the defendant
was to be found guilty II be lived in the
same house with the two women and ate
AZ their respective tables one.third OF .
time or thereabouts, and held out TO the
world by his language or conduct botn
"a his wives, and that II was not neces-
sary it should BIO shown that he
and the two women or either of
them occupied the same bed or slept
ia the same room or that he had sexual
intsreourse with them. 1t is not the
practice OF unlawful pohabiiation with
more than one woman that 10 aimed at
but cohabitation eassed with polyga-
my and having its outward semblance.
The general legislation as to iewd prac-
tices Is left 10 the territorial government.
The statute does not pry into the inti-
macies Of the marriage relation, but It
seeks not only to punish bigamy and
uciYgamy when direct proof OF the exist
ance Of these relations can be made. but
to prevent q man from fiaunting in the
eyes of the world the ostentation
and opportunities of biaamoas house
hold with ell the outward appearances Of
the continuance OF the same relations
which existed before the act was passed.
and without reference TO what may oc-
cur in the privacy Of those relations. Aud
again, In the spirit of the Interpretation,
q man oohabits with more than one
yomen.
In sections 3, 8 and Q OF the scts II
SAYS: "Yhen holding out to the world
two women as his wives by language or
conduct, or both; when he lives in the
same houss with them and eats at
the table of each portion OF
his time, although he does
not occupy the same bed or sleep in the
same room with either of them or actual.
" have sexual intercourse with either Of
them. he holds the two women out to
the world as his wives by his sonduct,
when he maintains the two wives and |
children Of each, all in the same house |
with himself and regularly eata at the
table Of esch and acts as the heads Of
the two families.
The opinion gives Webster's definition |
Of the words ''oohabit." and says that
the act was intended to REACH the exhibit |
tion Of all indioia OF marriage, house |
hold and family. Tue twice repeated
objections to the indictment because it
does not alIege that the defendant was
male person nor that he eohabited with
two women as wives or as persons held
out o. wives, are overruled under the
Criminal Procedure act of Utah, the
defendant having pleaded and not de.
INJURED, and being held TO have under
stood distinctly that the charge was
against male person and was for CO.
habiting with women as wives, and not
having been prejudicei by the failure to
30 alleRe.
The opinion concluded with the state
ment that strong appeal was made In
the argument not 10 uphold the rulings
of the trial court because that would
require polygamous husband not only
to cease living with his plural wives, but
also to abandon the women themselves.
and the Supreme Court Of the United
States was asked to indicate what the
conduct of the husband towards them
must be in order to conform to the re-
guirements al the law.
From the decision of the Court Jus.
tices Miller and Field dissented. Justice
Miller in his dissension OF the decision
said, II think the act of Congress when
prohibiting cohabitation with more than
one woman, meant unlawful sexual in
tercourse. It is. in my opinion, a strained
construction of a highly penal statute
to hold that men can be guilty under
that statute without the accompaniment
OF actual sexual connection. know of
no instance in which the word "cohab-
itation" has been used to describe a
criminal ohense when it did not imply