The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-05-11
NO JURISDICTION.

the Snow cases have taken, but il Is moi
BY any means disappointed. 1t feared
Just such an outcome from the first. II
feared it in the case Of Angus N. Can
non, which was taken up last year.
That the Supreme Court consented TO
hear that case and give an opinion in il
vas a matter of surprise to those who
had read the law as well as to lawyers.
Having heard that case and decided it.
il was less a matter of wonder that the
Snow cases were taken up and argued
on their merits. The apparently in
consistent position of the Supreme
Court in having heard and determined
an appeal case CT unlawful eohabita,
kon, and in now holding that il has no
jurisdiction, makes necessary an eI1
PLANTATION. The Congressional act of
Jane sd, 1874, provides that "a
writ of error from the Supreme
Court of the United States to
me Supreme Court Of the Territory
shall lie in criminal cases, where the
accused shall have been sentenced to
capital punishment or convicted of big
amy or polygamy." Thus, the grant
ing of appeals in the cases of these two
ofIenses, denies appeals in all others.
The Edmunds law was not then in ex-
istence. and there was no such offense
as unlawful cohabitation. 1t will be
remembered that last year, when it was
desired to appeal the case of Angus NJ.
Cannon, the Supreme Court of the Ter
ritory refused to send the case up on
the ground that no appeal could lie.
However, Mr.. Richards, of the de-
PENDANTS counsel. prevailed upon
Associate Justice Miller, of the United
States Supreme Court. to issue
The necessary writ to take the case
up. The government attorneys denied
that the Supreme Court had jurisdic-
ton, and briefs were drawn upon that
ground; but realizing the Dccessity of q
reasonable Interpretation or the mean
ing of the term unlawful cohabitation.
Mr.. Richards asked that the question Of
jurisdiction be not raised. The Attor-
ney-Generai finally consented to this,
provided the Court did not bring it up.
Mr.. Garland kept faith with the attor-
neys for Mr.. Cannon, and Solicitor-Gen-
eral Goode, who argued the case for
government, did not call up the ques-
ton of jurisdiction. thor was it brought
up by the Court, hence the appeal was
regularly argued and decided on its
merits. The Court having taken juris-
diciion in that instance, it was hoped
and expected that it would do so in Mr..
Shows case, but il ss>ns otherwise. We
have received no information of the
question having been argued or even
raised; it is more than probable that
nothing was said about il at the hear
ing, but that the Court took this method
Of avoiding rendering an opinion that
vsuld have put q stop to the reckless
and vicious course of persecution that
is being prscticed by the Utah courts.
The arguments of both the government
lawyer and the attorneys for the APP
Pellant. and the answers given, indi-
Gated plainly the views Of the justices
and told what would be their opinion IL
the case were decided on its merits.
That the judges believed that the Utah
courts were putting harsh and impro-
per constructions on the term un-
lawful cohabitation was apparent.
as was the belief, more than
once IS good As expressed, that
the Segregation" business twas wrong
and illegal. It is therefore much to be
regretted that the Court did not, as in
the Cannon case, steer around the ques-
ten Of jurisdiction and put a check
upon what is clearly wicked and unlav-
ful in the local tribunals.
The dismissal Of the appeals leaves
the Territorial Sapreme Court, and viz
tuaIIy the District Courts. in absolute
control Of the situation in the matter Of
prosecutions for unlawful cohabitation.
ANY outrageous ruling must stand, be
cause il cannot be appealed from. If il
shall please the Distinct Attorney to have
man indicted on fifty counts and sen
fenced to the Penitentiary for twenty
five -ears for the misdemesnor. 1t could
be done, and in view OF the vicious
nature and vindictive character Of the
government sttorneyand the courts who
bow Al his beck. it viii not surprise peo-
pie 10 learn some morning q some such
outrageous course of persecu ion. In the
present condition Of things. polygamy.
for which the law prescribes q penalty
of Eve years imprisonment and five
hundred dollars ine, is less offenss
than unlawful cohsbitstion. the punish
Asnt for which Is six nenths' inpris-
onDsnt and three hundred dollars
Ana