The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-01-10

particular otfense, as IL has reen Je
hned by this Court, as Il has been DE-
slgnated by the Supreme Court of Utab
territory, and as it has been declared
by the most exalted JUDICIAL tribunal =,
THIS reput hc,consists oftWo distinct and
requisite elements. One Of these is the
liVlng or man with more than one
woman, and the. other is the holdinC
! OUT OF these women by him as his
wives. And although the learned
counsel for the goyernn ent nav saw to
you IN his closing argument. as has
ALREADY been asserted IN this ana SINH
.ar cases, that the only TACT necessary
10 pc proven Is that the defendant has
Ived life which would lead the pub
TIC 10 believe that the ladies named were
his wives, ask YOU to eliminate a1v
Such unjust and fallaeiOus idea from
your sninds. Do not get sny sucb
foolish and wrongful impre ssion as thar
the prosecution, under any circumstan-
ces, can dispense with either one OF the
necessary constituent elements of the
oHense, and then demand conviction
at your hands. Gentlemen. nv Client
might nave been polvgamist during
tae year 1881 he might have owned and
acknowledged that every woman with
wnom the Indictment charges cohabita-
tlOn was his wife during The whole or
That PERIOD lie might have declared
this relation publicly IL the puInit in
the streets of Brigham Civ ORR the
newspapers-aG these things. even If
proyen-as they most emphaticaIlv
have not been-would not ana couId
not under the rulings of the Court con
stltute the unlawful cohabitation
charged against my client in this case
desire to impress upon you that Won
should not be mislead by assertions OF
the character which l have iust c.,-.-
troverted, and which might cause Won
to render verdict not in conformity
with law or conscience. ! maintain
that have expressed a correct view of
the law and that nothing of q contrary
nature will be given to you from His
Honor; who presides in this Court.
gentlemen, 1t Is not the simple. pass
I've relation OF polygamy which Congress-
mas declared against in the section of
the law under which this indictment is
brought. Certain disabilities g-e I'm.
posed upon the endant. even for the
status itself. He must neither vote
hold office, nor perform Jury duty dur
ing the existence of that status: but
that he should be subjected to punish-
ment-that he should be tried. con.
Ylcted, fined and imprisoned. It is re-
CURED that he should do much more
tnan remain passiVely in that relation.
de must have lived with these women
as husband lives with his wife. In
such cases as the one now on trial. the
manner OF living constitutes the habit
anc repute OF marriage What is the
g any habit and repute of Ev-
ing together as man and wife. in this
particular case against Lorenzo Snow?
For that proof we rely upon yie testi
mony OF witnesses for the prosecution.
and let me say, in passing, that upon
this testimony the law will not permit
counsel for the government to cast dis
credit. 1t is the testimony offered 10
you by the prosecution upon which Won
are requested to find q verdict OF guilty.
and the power to impeach it or impucn
L does not legally nor justly lie in the
mouth of counsel for the government
de introduced these witnesses, ana he
5 Irrevocably bound by their asse.-
ions. The TACT is that these witnesses
nave not been contradicted; the defense
las made no effort to controyert their
testimony, and what is that testimony?
All Oh these women, except Minnie, with
whom alone cOhabitatiun IS not Gerie'
estitied to You positively and unequi-
Toc3lly that at no time during the year
S84 did they live with the defendant.
n did the defendant live with
hem. There is no doubt nor
spute regarding the t-uthfuluess Of
heir assertions. II it had been possible
D produce testimony of a contrary
haracter. the prosecution would have
ltrodGced that other evidence.
sked some OF these ladies If they lad
we'd with the defendant as husband
nd wives during 1854. and they an
wered no" l then put the question
] its general sense: did the defendant
We with you, during 1891, as a hus-
and or otherwise ?" and they
answered, he did not" It IS proven
D you beyond the shadow Of a doubt
hat he did not moi on e sleep IL any
ne OF the residences OF these ladies',
hat he never ate there, and, gentlemen,
mere is no evidence before you that he
ven called at any one Of the houses
Tcept that OF Sarah, at which he made
NO visits to see daughter. their child,
no had suffered 4 serious ii iUry %
actured skull by being thrown from
arriage. The attending physician WIS
resent at these interviews, and .estifies
} the effect stated. Upon one other
;casion only lie was in the company
Sarah. the mother OF the injured
aughter. and that was when defendant
nd Sarah went TO Little Valley as soon
J the accident was reported 10 them.
hey went to find their child. o care
II her and bring her to her mothers
Ome; and upon their woeful journey
ley travelled in the same conveyance.
as there any crime IN such q journey
I'd In such visits Of paternal soIicitude?
lese are absolutely the only circum-
ances tending to show that the de-
ldant associated with Sarah as & hus-
md, neighbor. acquaintance or il any
her capacity; and yet il IS upon the
ct that Lorenzo Snow was gentle and
nder enough to perform this humane,
wing duty, that a demand for a
is partially based. On one
casion he was in the company OF Har-
It during the year 1881. At time
len defendants sister was visiting
N, he and that lady rode in q carriage
wen by hired man 20 the front of
irriet's residence. and without there
ghting, Harriet came from the house
q entered the vehicle, riding upon the
II seat with Mr.. Shows sister Eliza.
Tile defendant and the ooachma1 &C
pied the front seat. They were driven
the home ~ Sarah's son. Ircius, AZ
lich place the Two ladies alighted and
.Tofo