The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-10-08
TO THE MORM0NS.
An Epistle from the First
Presidency
READ IN LOGAN YESTERDAY.
an EzhortatiOn to raithfulness.

dag SAINTS:
RRETHREN AND SIsTERs.-As the
time for holding our Semi-annual Con-
ference has again come around, and we
are still prevented from addressing the
Saints in public, we deem it proper to
take this method of communicating
with you, that you may know the coun-
sci we have to give, and that we are not
neglectful of the duties which deyolve
upOn Us as the First Presidency OF the
As ali the Saints doubtless under
stand. there has been no cessation nee
we last wrote, in the work OF perSecu-
ton. 1t RACES, If anything, more herce-
~ than ever. Under cover OF what Is
called the EdmundS law, the most
outrageous acts of oppression are being
penetrated against the Latter-day
Saints. The aVowal has been openly
made that this law was expressly de-
signed for the destruction of q principle
of our religion, and in this spirit all
the prosecutions have been conducted.
Thus far no criminal, however guilty,
who has not been a Mormon" has
been punished under it. Acts of the
most sickening depTavity nave been
committed by non" MOrmonS" within
easy reach of its arm but have scarce
ly had q passing notice. While 1t Is
also worthy of note that, up to the
present writing, out Of ell who have
been accused and brought before the
District court, Only one'' Mormon" has
been acquitted. The nan acquitted,
we understand, was charged with being
the husband of g woman, on the ground
that he had camped in his wagon In q
ten acre lot in which her residence
stood and had carried some chickens
for her to market!
One OF the most renaTkab bic features
connected with the administration OF
this Law IS the extra ordinary rulings
which are made in its enforcement.
The Judge who presideS in the Second
Judicial District, in the recent trial Of
q case of unlawful C9habitatloRs gave
instructions to the Jury, at the request
of the defense. Several accused per
Sons would have been cleared IN the
Third Judicial District, had the juries
which rendered YerdictS in their cases,
been similarly instructed. They are as
follows:
!. !. Prior 20 the act Of March cd, 1882, CO.
habibation with more than one woman was
not unlawful.
2. II you dnd from the evidence that the
defendant, since the passage OF the Ed
minds act, March I'D, 1852, and within the
dates named il the indictment, has not held
OEt 20 the world, introduced, or announced
more than one of the women named IN the
Indictment % his wife, you should acqult
the defendant.
g. It's not necessary that the parties TO
q pOlygamOus marriage, or who have lived
IN the practice of cOhabiting with two or
more women, should divorce themselves, in
order 10 entitle them to the. presumption of
inn of ~ a
of the law.
4 As all children Of polygamous mar
riages, begOtten before March 22nd, 1851, ARE
legItlmated, and no cOh2bltation before that
date was unlawful, no eliminating infer
ence can be drawn by the jury from the de-
PENDANTS later acknowledgements Of his pa-
ternity Of such children by the women men
toned in the indictment, nor from later
recognition OF such women as their
mothers, and as women whom he had be-
fore said date, taken into the polygamOus
relation with him.
g. The law presumes innocence, and
therefore, that all persons who were CO.
habIting when the Edmunds act took effect,
contrary 70 the provisions of that act, then
ceased to do SO.
g. The law presumes all persons charged
with s. criminal offepse to be innocent until
the presumption IS overcome by proof;
therefore u presumes that all persons who
were living with more than one woman IS
wives prior to March -22d, 1852, have since
Z that date ceased to SO live and cOhabit.
9. II you find from the evidence that de-
fendant had children by the women named
in the indictment prior TO March ed, 1882,
then the defendant had right 10 VISIT his
children, and support them and make ar
rangements as to their welfare. He had
right also to assist their mothers in their
support, and for such q purpose could visit
the house where they and their mothers
live. He could furnish them 3 home, he
could visit the mother, the same as if they
# rtoh,
relations had existed between them, but he
should not associate with her rs a husband
associates with his wife.
Do we say too much if we state that
there are those now undergoing punish
ment in the penltentiary in the society
OF thieves and murdererS, who would
be as free as the prosecuting officers
themselves, mad the law been construed
by the legal canons applied to other
laws, ana according to the instruc-
tons given above?
The practice in these attacks upon US
has not been to presume the accused
innocent until proved guilty; but to
view him as undoubtedly guilty because
accused; aud the rulings OF the Court
in several Instances have been made to
secure conviction where the evidence
W9s open to question. The eXtraoEdi-
nary ruling concerning holding out,
IS one IN point; Notwithstanding the
Edmunds law specifies that the penalty
for unlawful conabitation, shall net BE
more than six months Imprisonment,
and three hundred dollars fine, the
notorious ruling from the same bench
concerning the number of indictments
which can be found against q person
accused of unlawful cohabitation,
states That he not only can be indicted
once for the whole period since the
passage Of the law, but an indictment
can be found Tor every week OF that
time. 50 that, 1T found guilty in this
manner, g mans punishment would
.a,,sregste an Imprisonment OF 81 years
Ind fines to the ancunC of S55,200.
Still more extraordinary Is the ruling
OF another Judge, who, not 20 be out
done in bis Zeat, says, that an lndict-
ment can be found for this charge
against s m2nfo every day, brother dis
unct interval Of time since the enact
ment of the law ! Asabcut 1872 days have
passed since then, 2 man found guilty
can be incarcerated in PRISON Tor b46
years and made pay fines 20 the amount
of SSsT, eco. Comment upon this ab-
surdity is unnecessary.
Before the EdmundS .blI became
law, and while on its passage, l. was
claimed that it's provisions were OF
4 fr.No