Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-03-05
able with more or less severity. Polygamy
has been and now is

e has been and now is
PROHIBITED BY THE LAWS OF MEXICO.
So even before this Territory was cede
nc to the United States the practice was III
lawful here under the laws OF our slste
republic, as it was at common law and b
the statutes of the States. In 1862 Cor
which was declaratory merely of tn
addition that it fixed penalty for it
the law valid, and also held tina
lawfully under the cloak of religion
faith. In that case it was said that law
were made for the government of actions
and while they cannot interfere will
mems religious beliefs and opinions, the,
s. may with practices. Suppose one be
l. lieved that human sacrifices were a par
n of religious worship, would it be seriously
/ contended that the civil government un
!, der which he lived could not interfere te
prevent sacrifice? Or, if wife re-
e ligiously believed it was her duty to burn
i herself upon the funeral pyre of her dead
. husband, would it be beyond the power
. of civil government to prevent her carry
: ing her belief into practice? So here, as
a law of the Organization of society under
the exclusive domain of the United
States, it is provided that plural mar
r riages shall not be allowed Can man
excuse his practices to the contrary be-
cause of his religious belief? To permit
this would be to make the protested doc
trines of religious belief superior to the
: laws of the land and, in effect, to permit
every citizen to become law unto him
self.
Government could exist only in name
under such circumstances, and notwith-
standing the fact that polygamy was an
offense at the common law and held in
adherence by the Christian world, and
that the laws for its suppression are de-
clared by the highest court to be consti-
tutional, the Mormon Church, which has
established itself in this Territory and has
built its structure upon
THE CORNER OF PLURAL MARRIAGE,
Continues to grow and flourish and to
defy the law. 1t preached plural mar
riage, practiced it openly, and boldly pro-
claimed its right to do so, the laws and
the customs of the country notwithstand-
| ing. 1t claimed that the practice was
right, and while all it's members did not |
practice polygamy, all advocated and de-
Tended the practice. No man Is true
Mormon who does not believe in the doc
trine of plural marriage. The Church
was active in PROSECUTING, and brought
thousands of converts from foreign lands
each year. 1t built up strong
and powerful government, uniting
Church and State, which in it's
laws and practices is antagonistic to the
very foundation principles Of the United
States. Here, then, was a people build
ing up
AN EMPIRE WITHIN THE REPUBLIC,
Whose members defied the laws of the
land, and boldly advocated and per-
mitted practices which were at war with
the laws, customs and traditions of the
American people.
The statute of 1862 had proved made !
quate, and in 1882 what is termed as the {
Edmunds act was adopted, which pro-
vides for the punishment of polygamy '
and unlawful cohabitation. The crime
OF blgamy or polygamy consists in enter I
ing into bigamous or polygamous mar a
rage. The ofense is complete when any I
person who has husband or wife living.
marries another. 1t is also complete C
when any man simultaneously, or on the P
same day, marries more than one woman.
This, however, does not apply to any I
person by reason of any former marriage
whose husband or wife by such marriage
has been absent for five successive wears,
and is believed by such person to be dead,
Tor to any person by reason of any for +;
ner marriage which shall have been dis r
'olved by valid decree of a competent q,
'ourt on the ground of the nullitytof the Ii,
marriage contract. In this Territory there q,
no law regulating marriage; -
NO FORM OR CEREMONY is REQUIRED, bs
md no record of marriage is kept. Mar re
lage is left as it was at the common law. NJ
here need be no witnesses present. II
ne parties are competent to contract, all ba
nat IS essential is present agreement pa
he marriage is complete when there is
Ill, free and mutual consent of parties tic
apable OF contracting. Proof that par stl
es have treated each other as husband tn
nd wife, and have lived together as such. m.
sufficient to enable a court or iury to
nd that at some previous time the par Ac
es did as fact consent to be married. the
ld did, as fact, consent to be husband an
nd wife; the mode of life, the holding 10y
1t, the declarations or admissions of the
'cused, and the like, are circumstantial bat
'idence from which the fact of marriage rec
ay be inferred.
THE oFFENsE OF CoHABITATIoN ne ne
complete when man to all outward c eS,
pearances is living and associating with loo,
ore than one woman as wife. It ia III n
so complete when man has a legal ~,
te living from whom he is undivorced. a on
lom he recognizes, holds out and sun.
rts as wife, and he at the same time nor
es with another woman whom he sun fot;
rts, holds out and recognizes as a wife 90 s. ~
the term "holding out a wife" is meant VI 9
IN language and conduct as leads the r ua
rid to believe that the parties are liv. 10y
and associating as husband and wife
intention OF the law-making power in
acting the law against polygamy and M
laoltatlon was to protect monogamic L. b
rrlage by prohibiting all other mar was
9e' Wnether evidenced by ceremony to q
0y conduct and circumstances alone. cross
me supreme Court of the United new
YES remarked in the case Of the United Unit
tes VS.: cannon, that the statute 'sseeks and
only to punish bigamy and polygamy Davi
en- direct proof of the existence Of door
Sc relations can be made, but to pre- s
I man from Haunting in the face of b btGn
world the ostentation and opportuni- This TiI
OF blgamous household, with all the [annr,
ward appearance of the continuance testi1
ne same relations which existed he. the Il
the act was passed" To constitute ado,
offense it need not be shown that the MI
les indulge in sexual interco,ns s.a' 'ne merly
the same bed, or spend their time f anu 9 :
er the same roof Abandonment NAV
ound against man guilty of cohabi. AR
IN for every day or other distinct in Pc,
al OF time dnrinp which bo e.