The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-10-03

able doubt that the defendant within the
ime specified in he Indictment. lived with
or held out as his wife Fanny Dora l. nnell.
What is meant by h 'ldlng out in this sense
i'm such language and conduct on the part of
fhe defendant as would lead the world to
believe that the parties were associating
and living together as husband and wife
The Supreme Court, Mr.. Rawlins said.
had fixed the meaning of the word &C.
habitation as dwelling together as hus-
hand and wife, and this definition had
a special bearing on this case. The de-
PENDANT had dissolved his reIatio IS With
the poIygamous- wife, and mad only
visited his children. 1t would be I'M
reasonable to say this constituted a
crime. The children we're legitimate.
having been made so by the Edmunds
law. Because the polygamous wife
had been called Mrs. Arnold was not a
reason for conviction; the defendant
could not help that. He had ceased TO
claim her as his wife. A public &voxal
OF this act had been made IN court
thereby removing all possibilities of
leading people to believe that they
still maintained the relation of husband
and wife.
Nh. RAwLIEs then addressed his
remarks to the jury. He argued that
the agreement between the defendant
and his polygamous wife, aud the form
er's promise made in court, dissolved
the polygamOus relation existing be-
tween them. Their children, however,
were legitimate. Tbeir had grown up
between the parents, during their years
of association, feelings of affection for
each other which could not be sundered
in a moment, and which must be coz
sidered in dealing with this question.
The defendant, Notwithstanding these
circumstances, and an adverse public
feeling, had promised to obey the law.
He had, however, continued to visit MS
children. The District Attorney hid
said he could not do this. butthe atfec-
tons of his heart said he must. The
prosecution asked what no man with
the instincts of manhood could do -
turn a deaf ear to the appeals of his IN
nocent offspring. Il was said he might
support them. But the mere support
of tender children was but small part
of parents duty. They needed his
fostering care, and there should be no
censure attached to him for visiting
them daily, if he considered it neces-
sary. The law was not so harsh as to
forbid these visits, though the District
Attorney demanded ii, lest the man
was so debaSed that he would disregard
his solemn promise in the court, and
violate the law. The most that could
be said of the defendant was that he
had visited his former pOlygsmouS wife
and her children. De had ceased to
conabit with her, and proClsimed the
fact to the world. But that proC'ama-
ton did not require that he should be
come brute and cast her and her chill
dren ajrift. She still looked to him for
support and assistance in rearing their
children. He should surely have
the privilege of smoothing the
path of that life that was
now scarcely worth the living, since
she had been deprived of the care of
husband. Yet the District Attorney
says the law will not permit it; that it
would not permit the woman to receive
any attention whatever. The man who,
under the evidence IN this case, came TO
the conclusion that the defendant was
guilty, must himself be Of that corrupt
nature that be would perform an act
that no decent man would be guilty OF.
If the law was as inhuman as the Dis
trict Attorney said it was, the man who
concerned TO it and dlsregarded the life
of his offspring was unworthy The name
of man. If the defendant was con-
victed under the evidence in this case,
it would be impossible for him to say
that he would obey the law, because he
could not learn what that law required.
The Court had said he could visit, and
now the prosecution wanted him sent
to the Penitentiary for doing so. II he
were convicted, it would stop all pro
gress at bringing people within the law.
The example in this case would be
pointed to as the effects of promising
to observe the law, and that example
would be sufficient to deter others from
giving q similar assurance. The District
Attorney him self would not know how
to live to conform to his own definition
of the law, and would find himself in a
fix if he should be converted and bap
tised, "that is if they would not hold
him under, which l think they would
The jury in this case would not be JUS
tiled in finding any other verdict but
that of not guilty.
AT 2P.A,
The case was resumed, and Mr. F.S
Richards addressed the jury in behalf
of the defendant: st seems'', be said
"the first thing to do in the case is to
determine lA6 I6iaClOQS Mr.. ArHOf0 ana
Fanny LinneH had sustained towards
one another during the period named in
the Indictment, and. if the jury found
that the defendant and the lady named
did not sustain the relation of husband
and wife during that time, then should
tho defendant be found not guilty
There is 10 difficulty in finding the fact
that 0rson Arnold and the lady named
were not during the time named in the
Indictment, husband and wife. The rs-
lationship was the same as if they had
been divorced. The actions OF the &C.
fendant were not unlawful. In April.
1885, Orson Arnold was charged With
having two wives. he came into court.
plead guilty to the charge, and promised
that in the future he would live apart
from his second Eife-that he would
obey the law against unlawful cohabita
ton, as it was construed by the courts
The defendant could not obtain a
divorce from Fannie, because in the
eyes of the law, at least, she was not his
wife. There was but one way out of
the dilemma, and the defendant took it.
But, even if he could have obtained a
divorce, would it have been any more
binding, any more solemn than the
promise that the defendant had made
that he would henceforth live apart