The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-05

of individuals or of the cnucrt
Men srraigned for this offense
look the court straight in the tace
and refuse to violate their consciences,
and go cheerfully to prison; notwith-
standing themake-the-prop Use delusion
is still held on to them. And the da,
of Mr.. Dickson's triumph seems as far
remote as at the b ginning.
This ( course is aggravating to a mar
impatient to be crowned the victor, AND
1, ubtless makes him vindictive. A.
my rate ne turns upon those who &C
aepted the terms of accommodation
'ffered by the court. o. P ARNOLD
greed to live within the requirements OF
5he Edmunds law as interpreted by the
courts. He was to cease living with
his plural wife. though it was under
TODD that he could support her, care
ior her children, and visis her and her
children as often as it became necessary
TO look after their welfare. Yet
little more than a year scarcely
passes, when this man is brought into
court again on the charge of unlawful
cOhabitation. The evidence dis
closed the fact that he had
kept his agreement with the court.
It is true he visited the woman who
once was his polygamous wife, but IN
der such circumstances as not to be i'm.
proper, but rather meritorious. His
coaduct being such as the Prosecuting
Attorney admits IN effect that it would
not have been criminal were it not for
the semblance that the lady is still his
wife. The first wife testifies that Mr..
Arnold has made his home with her eX
clusively when he has been in the city.
The once plural wife said that at the
time Mr.. Arnold entered into his agree
ment to keep the law, lit was under
stood that We were not to hold the
relations of husband and wife
any more" And in addition to
to that. says: 81 have never lived with
the defendant as his wife since the 1st
of May last year''-the time that Ar
nold's promise went into effect. But
Notwithstanding all this, the Prose-
cutting Attorney breaks in upon Ar
nold's security and says the promise be
made with the Court is not sufficient;
that he should have emphasized it with
obtaining decree from the Court, thst
the status OF the parties might be de-
clsred; and because they failed to do
this, Mr.. Dickson asks that Arnold be
found guilty of unlawful cohabitation
Yet Mr.. Arnold was not aware that this
was required of him, and thought his
publicly declared intention to live
within the law as interpreted by the
courts stood as the equivalent
# a divorce in disannuling a legal
marriage. And this promise to obey the |
aw did dissnnul th-ir marrisge so far
S human agencies conId disannul it.
md now the promise that has hitherto
cen held out as all sufficient is TO be
asst aside as insufficient, and is no
onger a safeguard to those who have
made it. Arnold believing that his
greement with the court did away
nth the semblsnce of his once polyg.
nous household. goes about his bust
ess, associates with his once plural
life, as he might in all propriety with
once legal wife who had been divorced
ON him, but the arrangement only
royed a snare and a delusion to him.
was covenant with deaih-an
greement with he'll. 1t is a case OF
unic faith on the part of Attorney
ickson.