The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-01-10

porn In polygamy, and there being n
law prohibiting the utmost freedom {
association, those families were unite
together by all those unsreakable syn
pathles and affections which bind tn
Iather to the chill, the husband to Ii
%ne, the vile to the husband, tn
cnlldren TO their parents. "a
upon this condition of things. upon
people SO delicately and anomalousl,
situated there suddenly fell without
warning, like the crash of doom. tb,
law OF 1882. That law peremptorilr
prohibited under severe penalties tb,
combination OF any male person viii
more than. one woman. What woulC
pe lts elect upon the conduct and re
I Iui OF the polygamists of Utah
what was the meaning ofthis wore
cohhblt as applied to them?
II was IN the first place plain enough
.hat congress did not intend to absolvt
the polygamous father from any of the
uotleS and responsibilities which per
tanned to his relation as a father. For
oy the seventh section of the act
Tue children of all pclygamous mar.
rlages, which had been solemnized in
accordance with the ceremonies of The
Ghurch OF Latter-day Saints are made
legltlmate-thus placing them upon the
same plane and clothing them with the
same rights as the law bestows unon the
chlluren OF the legal marriage-the
same right of nheritance-the same
right to call upon the father for educa.
tlon, tQr support, and for the discharge
OF all those duties which the father
owes to the child. So far then as the
poiygamous father and his children 70
concerned, this law did not sever nor
attempt to sever the relations and the
associations existing between them Inv
legallzlng those relations they were
made closer and more Intimate than
before. -
But as regards the father and the
mother OF those children thus made
legitimate, what was the effect of this
Jaw upon the relations existing between
them? 1t has been likened bv Your
Honor addressing Judge Powers) to a
decree of divorce. The COMPARISON is
tellcitouS and striking, but still | NAV
be permitted to say it is INADEQUATE
Similar things are never the same
True there is separation in the one
case as IN the other, but different in
KIND, IN character and degree.
A divorce implies alienated affection.
usually bitter resentment The love
winch once existed has been turned to
hatred. The court may compel by its
decree the payment of alimony. but it
IS forced contribution, reluctantly
gwen. How different the separation in
The other easel Here there is no alien
ated affection; no bitter resentment
The affection which once existed CLOVIS
r1IS aoI
IS the mother OF his children, united to
MIN BY coYera1 cOnsecrated by
common faith, and which thew be-
lieved to be indissoluble in time
and eternity. The love of the father
for his children, and for the mother Of
ms children, Is as strong and as deep
as before. This, atleast, no law can pro.
hlbit, no edict can annul. II exists by
virtue OF higher law. 1t is written by
the finger of God himself upon the uni.
versal Heart of humanity.
Behold. then, the difficulty, the in
Unite difficulty of his position. The
aW does not compel him to obtain 2
1ecree OF divorce, nor is he compelled
20 make or place on record any public
declaration that she is no longer his
vile. Nor can he, without her consent.
AXE away from her his name. Butit
5 his duty TO support her. and her
educate and train them in
ellectually and morally to the extent
ii his ability. He must assist in car
ng Tor the family; he cannot throw
he whole burden upon her. He NAV
lay, he must, in the discharge of those
lutieS, visit the Lou e where the mother
mi children reside. for he cannot
ear them from her arms. In sickness |
ma III suffering, cold must be the heart |
hat could deny TO her ana to them the |
reSence and the sympathy of the
ather. All these things he NAV nav.
IS his imperative duty, to do. but
everthelesS, says the statute. he must
ot cohabit with her, or with more than
ne woman,
What, then, must he do 10 escape
be condemnation of this Ian? Gen
emen of the jury, what would you Rave
one9 Put yourselves in his place. |
ppeal to you individually and person
Ily. Go back to the year 1891, the
me laid in this Indictment, and re
lember that the meaning of this word
cohabit." as used in the act OF Con
ress. had not then been fixed by Judi
al definition. You must define it for !
OuISeiI. lou are 10 S6iSCI from the ,
meanings OF this most am
iguouS term one by which your con
uct shall be governed. You
re 10 lawyer, and if you ask |
lie law its oracles' are dumb. 5
= give back dubious and disSonant |
esponscs. Bewildered, cropping in the J
lidnight darkness, what can you do? t
GU find in ordinary language, in pop '
lar speech, and with that you are fam &
lar, that the word cohabit has a
ell understood Specification, and that |
SEXUAL intercourse. Suppose that in
efault of light from any other quarter, c
on adopt this meaning of the word,
ld conform your conduct 10 it. You q
case sexual intercourse I
18th more than one woman. You do 1
ore. While you make occasional 5
sits, as in sickness, or when necessity e
quires it, in discharge of the duties l
III eve to your children, while You /
Ipport her and them, you thenceforth 7
ase to live, to sleep, 10 eat, TO dwell. C
make your home, except at the one S
,use and with the one woman; if a
ter all that you should be convicted I
I'd punished because you had cohab- s
ID with more than one woman, what v
1uld YOU think of the Jury which "
nvicted Won? What would Won think Il
a iIry which. taking q definition of b
is statute. unknown at The time. ar Il
Il u - = d =