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

her hotel BILL, but what OF 1Lf he was
eeen at the residence or Fannie iIinnel,
or the 18th of January at night. He was
there on a mission that any man would
have gone on. He was there when one
Of his infant children was III and suffer
ing. He was seen there on the night OF
the 18th, and he subsequently was seen
at the Continental Hotel and there
Franks heard him call for doctor
Rrnedict; he logged him back and
saw him enter the house. A deputy
following him night after night for
weeks. and the worst they can saw to
vou is this, that his children we're sick,
aud that he had called there 10 see
them. If had been prosecuting such
a case, nd HAD a deputy dOggi1g the
footsteps of the defendant day and
night, for weeks and may befOr months,
and then not been able to bring forth
better evidence than what has been
offered, should have hesitated long
before l should have brought Out an
indictment against him. The idea OF
holding out promises to man to obey
the law, taking his solemn word
for il, and then On ting a spot
ter on his track Go through the
whole catalogue of the evidence from
b -ginning to end, and what Is there In
it? Then the registration at Ogden
What is there in it? Did no one ever
write word, and leave off one letter.
The testimony is so transparent that it
won't hold together, or if it does, it will
mean that when a man makes q prom
Use to obey the law he is still not TO be
trusted: that if be does anything to
bring about contact with the children
or their mother he is guilty. 1t can
not be that the laws of the United States
were ever intended to be so cruel, as
the construction placed upon them. So
far as they could they terminated their
relationship of husband and wife on
the 18Th of April, 1885. The woman
saws the relationship had never been
resumed.
Me- DICKSON closed for the prosecu-
ton. He opposed giving the lnstruc-
tons asked for by the defense. In ad-
dressing the jury he said the laws
against polygamy and unlawful CO.
habitation had never been respected
more severe than was necessary and
usual when crime was committed. 1t
might be true that innocent children
were compelled to suffer, but that
could not be prevented. As for the
woman suffering, She knew when she
married the defendant that it was a
fe 'ony, and she must bear the suffering
therefor. They both committed the
deed and must bear the cross. however
heavy it might seem. 1t had been
said her life was not worth living
when she was deprived Of husband,
but she only had herself to blame Tor
the pain she suffered. Their chill
dren, though innocent, would have to
suffer, but that coulI not be helped
and must be borne. When a muir
derer was executed, it might break the
heart of MS innocent wife and bring
ignominy on innocent children, but
that made no difference. 1t might be,
as suggested by Mr.. Rawlins, that
the District Attorney might be
converted and shake hands with trait
orS. If he did he should be made to
feel the weight of the law. He did not
want the defendant convicted for visit
ing his sick children. 1t was not neces-
Sary for him to do as he did. He might
have sent carriage to take his child out
riding, and not gone himself. If he had
only visited the house when the child
rem were sick, that might be excused.
When the defendant promised TO obey
the law, the polygamOus wife was his
wife and is so still. It was said that the
marriage. being illegal, could not be dis
solved by divorce. But this defendant
should have done all in his power to
make it apparent, rot only 20 the court
but to all, that he meant To keep ms
word Swheu he said he would keep
The law, and should have filed a bill
with the court setting forth the
facts, and asking the court to
make q decree setting forth that
the marriage between him and his
plural wife was Illegal and void. Every
man who male the promise should do
this, and put an end to the polygamous
status. 1t was their duty to do this
and the status could not be changed in
any other way. The defendant had not
done this, so beth women were his
wives still. If this was not done, there
was no place at which the line Of Co
habitati0ns could be drawn, Ii the
woman was divorced he could visit her
at any time, and also visit her children.
He might even sleep under the same
roof with her, and commit no otfense
against the law or good morals. But as
this defendant had not dissolved the
relations with his polygamOuS vile by
a decree of the court, he could not visit
her as he had done, without causing
the conclusion that the relation
of husband and wife was still
maintained. The jury might say
that when the woman or her
children were sick he might visit them.
but not at any other time. He could
provide for them when in health, bat
must abstain from visiting them while
they are living with their mother. He
could send his lawful wife and have her
bring the children to him, where be
could give wha, care he chose, but that
was as far as he could be permitted to
go unless he had the unlawful marriage
annulled. The law was not aimed at
meretricious intercourse, but to break
up the polygamous household ana put
away the sem blance of polygamy from
this community. Young people grow
ing up in Utah could not learn 10 re-
spect the homogeneous home if the
poIygamous home was permitted 10 ex-
ist by its side. 1t was the evil example
Of polygamy that was sought to be re-
moved, and the status of the polygsm-
Gus family must be dissolved. Ia the
present case there was no evidence that
there had been any change in the man
ner of living after the defendant made
the desired promise.
Mr.. SHEEKs interrupted the proSecu
tor 70 cav that such evidence had been