Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-17
A WRONG RULING.
II Impalrs the Obligation Of a Legal
Contract.

Editor DcScrot NcpG
| observed, tho other day, In the
Provo Dspatoh, a statement ofa case
which involves anew phase Of tho Ed
munds. Tucker law. Here Ia an OK.
tract from the paper named, giving the
situation In a nutshell;
at appears that .omo -cven years ago,
prior 10 the passage Of tho act prohibiting
marriages within the fourth degree Of
cunsAngunity In this Territory was
passed, Joseph Mower, formerly 81
Springville, woocd aud welded one
Cynthia Mower, OF Fnlrview, Sanpctc
County, who Ia tho daughter ct Henry
Mower, a halt.brother W Joseph Mower.
Tho marriage WAS not agnins. the
law and entirely satsmct0ry 10 all
parties concerned, and the family tcla.
tons nj the present time are agreeable.
Joseph Mower aud Cynthia Mower have
continued to lived ~ man aud wife, not
withdrawing the passage OF the law on
March 3rd, 1857, prohibiting tho marriage
OF relations within the fourth degree ot
consanguiniiy.
Tho Judge rules that II within three years
ago passed the parties had sexual inter
course knowing their consangulnty,
they are guilty OF incest aud amenablc TO
tho law"
regard this ruling Of his Honor
Judge Blackburn ~ most extraordi.
nary, because II contravenes one Of the
plainest provisions OF the National
Constitution. There IN no question ~
TO the validity Of the marriage at the
time IL was contaminated. twas legal
aud therefore innocent before the law.
The Constitution forbiis the enactment
Of any statute which impairr the Obli.
cation Of contract. II the Edmunds
fucker act bc mndc applicable TO a
care such ~ the one In question, then
such operation Ia a clear violation VI
the supreme law Of the land"
To INLET penalty upon n person
becau-. he iulfl- any Of the conditions
OF contract that was legally formed
and entered upon IA certainly Wide
departure from constitutional ground,
and II II prevails dangerous prerc.
dent will be- established. N the obi.
CATION Of one class Of contracts can be
Impaired, then why not the same pro.
cess be applied 10 other? II such au
innovation be admitted AZ proper, then
what would hinder the enactment and
enforcement Of laws impalring the oh.
legation Of any other contract legally
formed and contaminated?
IL the marriage had, In this instance,
been entered upon subsequent 10 the
passage Of the act n1w applied 10 II,
the contract would have been void,
aud thr position Of the parties would
have been the same Ms n no wedding
ceremony had been performed. In
that case tho Edmunds-luckor law
would have applied with full force.
II h proper that the laws Of the land
should he administered and enforced
with intelligence and precision, but |
regard any stepping outside Of It's re-.
requirements ia ono Of the most fragrant
wrongs that can be Inflicted
upon society. Tho Constitution
il the supreme law OF tho land
and must not be ignored In con.
strung Congressional statutes. Hence
I regret 10 observe what | deem 10 be o
clearly unconstitutional ruling, IN the
case now considered by his honor
Judg Blackburn. | cannot help think
ing that 1.-THE question involved were
properly tested la the higher courts,
the position taken by that judicial
fuuctlOnafy would be declared 10 be-
wrong In principle. X. W. L..