Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-03-05
LEGAL AND LOGICAL

Anderson delivered a decision in
volving the heirship Of offspring
horn out Of legal wedlock. Il
appeared in full in the NEws
on the day following. The
claim Of George II. Cope, son Of the
late Thomas Cope, deceased, by a
plural wife, to n share in the distri-
button Of the residue of the estate,
was opposed by Janet Cope and
Thomas Cope, lawful wife and son
Of decedent. The case came up on
appeal from the Probate Court,
George II. Cope being the appel
LIANT.
Judge Marshall had decided that
the law of 1876, which gave all sur
viving children Of decedent the
status Of heirship, is invalid, be-
cause 1t is in conflict with the Con-
gressional law Of 1862, that statute
having been enacted orthesuppres-
sion Of polygamy.
Judge Anderson affirmed The de-
cision Of the Probate Court, adopt
ing the same line of reasoning,
holding that the statute Of 1862
annulled all Territorial statutes that
encouraged polygamy.
Probate Judge Bartch gave a de-
cision in a precisely similar case
yesterday. 1t was in relation to an
application of the children Of the
late Orson Pratt by his plural wives,
for a share of their fathers estate.
Hsrmel Pratt, the administrator Of
the estate, opposed the application,
while 1. NJ. Waddell and B. w. |
briggs, Jr, represented the appli-
cants. 1t was admitted that these |
applicants were the children Of Or |
son Pratt by his plural wives and |
that he recognized them as his
children during his lifetime.
The decision of Judge Bartch was
the antithesis Of that rendered by
his predecessor Judge Marshall) and |
by Associate Justice Anderson. He
held that the law of 1876 is valid and
that the applicants are entitled to a
distributive share of the estate.
No decision could be more clearly
right than that given by the present
Probate Judge, while, per contra. no
opinion could be more preposterous
than the ones mentioned which pre-
ceded it upon the same question.
The highly seasoned absurdity of
Judge AndersOR's alleged reasoning
to the effect that the local statute of
1873 was invalidated by the national
law of 1852 because it encouraged
pOlygamy must be apparent when
the Edmunds law of March, 1852, is
considered in connection with that
position. Here is an extract from it:
Section :. That the issue Of bica-
nous or Polygamous marriages, q
known as Mormon marriages, in cases {
IN which such marriages have been 4
solemnized according to the cere- t
monies Of the Mormon sect, in any '
Territory Of the United States. and 1
such issue shall have been born before L
The first day OF January, Ammo Domini
eighteen hundred and eighty-three. ,
are hereby legitimated.'
If the odium of announcement i,
Of polygamy attaches to the Terri :
lorial statute, it fixes itself equally +
upon the Edmunds measure. en- n
acted expressly for the suppression n
1f that marital system. Thus the Il
after act would be asserted as in a
conflict with its alleged solitary n
'bjeet and with itself. 1t does the n
anne thing in relation to the off.
pring born outside OF lawful we'd :.
ock as did the Territorial law
pives them the status of heirship. 1t =
vent still further: it gave them the :,
@h4ANS Vi 4IeslluaCN.
The position taken by Judge Mar
hall andAssociate Justice a anderson =
legal absurdity on its face. The VI
ection Of the Edmunds law quoted
egitlmates the offspring Of plural 7.
marriages born previous to January =
ST, 1883. Heirship and legitimacy :,
re inseparable. Itappears as if the =
Fo functionaries last named had -
'rgotten the existence of the Ed "
funds act, or at least its special mo-
isions- Ifrhis benot the case. it is :.
ossible that they preferred 10 swim -
18th the prevailing current =
itheut reference to legal or IoCi- -
Il consistency, TO say nothing Of -,
e INST principles of justice. whose y
ADMINISTRATION is due to every man
oman and child, whether he or
e, be Jew, Gentle or a'AIormon., :, "
lille this is the right Of all, with -
{ respect to age or condition. that = =
ecies OF contravention of the re- ---'
irements Of justice, presumed to
vern the scales held by the blind y,
1dess, which tends to take from -,
ildren that to which they are ~
arly entitled, has an aspect of -.
;uliar enormity. i"'
We have, because We considered -
n at the time deserving of it.critj- -
Sd Judge Bartch with some ~
Gritty for what We deemed I'M .-
led for expressions used by him a.
side OF his official capacitv ~
are as ready to extend TO him
any other man, eongratulation -,
en- he does the proper thing ~
lille it was no more than bis -,
nden duty to decide as he did
hese days of official degeneracy
b two decisions Of directly op-
te character on the same oues-
involved confronting him
was to his credit that he II
ted to stand upon the law and Just
c of an important point. and leasi
injustice and prejudice to get higt
ind him. fee
in
HE WAY 1T CAV pp noxp trenl
1t i