The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-02-07

seven lIVil q wiyeS-the last being COMPARE
lively young, with an infant in her arms He
furnishes homes for, supports, associates
with, claims, holds out, and flaunts in the
face of society all these seven women as his
wives. And yet he says he cOhabits with
but one. The law must characterize his re-
lation to them, and his intercourse and as
socIation with them. Let US consider the
case with respect to Sarah, his lawful wife.
4 lawful marriage of itself affords a
strong presumption of matrimonial cohabi-
tation, because such cohabitation is in ac-
cordance with duty andusually attends such
a marriage, When 10 this presumption are
| added the further differences from the fol
lowing facts, that defendant claimed Sarah
all the time as his wife, and that she CLAIMS
to be such; that he provides for her a home
and the necessaries and comforts of life
that they were on good terms; that he took
her to the theatre, out riding, visited her oc-
casionally at her home and was the father
of her children. The conclusion re-
| moves every reasonable doubt that
he cohabited with her as his wife.
! When they were associating together, she
! was not his paramour or his friend simply
| he then had and still has all the rights and
| opportunities of husband and she those of
| wife. They were living and were to-
geiher. They were living together. Under
such circumstances the law will not permit
| tnem to say they were together merely as
friends and not as husband and wife,;
1t is not essential to matrimonial cohabi
| tatiOn that the parties should be together all
the time if their intercourse and relations
are agreeable and they associate together
some part of the time. In that case the law
does not notice the intervals of separation.
Owing to the necessities of human life. and
the claims of business and trade. married
people are often in each others company less
for long periods than the defendant and
his wife Sarah were during the year 1885,
and yet they are regarded as cohabiting as
man and wife. Such is often the case with
mariners, travelling statesmen, and other
classes of persons that could be mentioned.
They associate at long intervals and are re-
garded as cohabiting.
The third section of the Act of Congress
of March 22nd, 1882, was intended to reach
such conduct rs the evidence proves the de-
PENDANT guilty Off any male person
cohabits with more than one woman he
shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanor."
etc. When the entire act, of which the
above quotation Is a part, is taken and con-
sidercd together IN the light of the occasion
aud necessity of its enactment, and of the
evil il was intende d to remedy, we are of the
opinion that the term cnhabit should lie
given a broad meaning. In constituting the
term, regard should be had to the spirit and
general intent of the act. ''It Is an estab-
IIshed rule in the exposition of statutes
that the intention of the lawgiver is to
be deduced from view of the whole and
every part of a statute, taken and com
pared together. When the words of
statute are not explicit, the intention is
to be collected from the context = from
the occasion and necessity of the law-from
the mischief felt - and the object and
remedy in view; and the intention is
To be taken or presumed according
to what is consOnant to reason and good
discretion" This was the rule laid down by
Plowden, PIP. 10, 81, 2O5, 1868. and by these
maXims Chancellor Kent affirms, 1.-THE sages
of the law have ever been guided IN search
ing tor the intention of the legislature and
commends them, cas- maXims of sound in
depreciation, which have been accumulated
by the experience and ratified by the appro-
baton of ages" l Kent Comm, 1927.
Potter's DwarrIs on Statutes and Constitu-
tons, p. 1876, note Is.
In constituting the term c0habitation as
used in the act under consideration, the
Supreme Court of the United State, say in
the case of the United States VS.. Cannon
(nOtyet reported): sit is the practice of I'M
lawful Capitalization with more than one
woman that IS aimed at-a cohabItation
classed with polygamy and having its out
ward semblance. 1t is not on the one hand
merltriclous unmarital intercourse with
more than one woman. General legislation
as to lewd practices is left to the
Territorial government. Nor on the
other hand does the statute pry
into the intlmacies of the marriage relation.
But it seeks not only to punish bigamy and
pOlygamy when direct proof of the existence
of those relations can be made, but to pre-
vent man from Haunting in the face of the
world the Ostentation and opportunitie of
a bigamOus household with all the outward
appearances of the continuance of the
same relations which existed before the act
was passed. and without reference to what
may occur in the privacy of those rela-
TONS"
This court, speaking by Foreman, j. said:
''Wnat then was the object OF the Congress
in enacting this statute? 1t was, judging
from the whole act, intended to be an aid IN
breaking up polygamy and the pretense
thereof" Pacific Reporter, Vol. z, MOI;
p. 374. The opinion of this Court in case of
United States VS.. Musser, Ibid. D. 39I) is to
the same effect; cit appears plain that the
intention was TO protect the homogeneous
marriage, by prohibiting all other marriage,
either in form or in appearance only whether
evidenced by ceremony, or by eonductan and
circumstances alone.
The end of the law was the protection of
the homogeneous marriage, and The sup
preston OF p0lygamy and unlawful cohabl-
tation were but means to that end. 1t is
proper also to take into consideration the
conditions as the National Legislature
which the law was to be applied
and enforced. They knew the time
had elapsed within which a very large por-
ton of those living in polygamy could be
punished for that Offense, and that many of
these were among the most influential men
in society, being the heads of the Church;
and that the example of their continuing
to live with their plural wives under claim
of divine right would be a scandal to So
clety and a menace to the lawful marriage:
that such examples would be continuing
invitation and an apparent justification for
their followers, either secretly or openly to
violate the law. Congress therefore forbade
plural marriage in appearance only, as we'll
as in form, and by the example of punish
ment it doubtless intended to eradicate the
example of apparent plural marriages, as
well as the plural marriage in form"
The evidence against the defendant shows
one of the most aggravated cases and worst
examples of polygamy. He has one lawful
and SIX plural wives living, and all of them
he maintains and publicly acknowledges by
introducing them as such; but claims that
he is cohablting with but one and visiting
the others when he pleases. We are of the
opinion that the evidence was sufficient to
Justify the verdict.
The defendant excepted to certain parts
of the charge given in the lower court, and
assigns the giving thereof to the jury as
error. The charge appears to have been an
oial one and does not consist of separate
instructions. Each part of it should be re-
garded as qualified by the other portions,
If the paragraphs excepted to were not mis-
leading when so considered, they should not
be regarded as erroneous. The portion
first excepted to is, ut is not necessary that
the evidence should show that the defend
ant and these women, or either of them. oc-
cunipd the same bed silent in the same room,