The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-12-28
LIGHTING FRANCHISE KILLED
FORMER UTAH MARRIAGES.
A Pension Case Involving Mormon
Church Divorce.

To the Editor of The herald:
William Strong, a pensioner from dis
abilities incurred while in the Mormon
battalion, Mexican war, died four years
ago. HIS widow applied for pension for
herself and minor heirs, but it was re-
iected by the commissioner on the ground
of lack of legal surroundings to her mar
rage with pensioner, he having received
q Mormon divorce from his former
wife. Hon. Oscar Foote was employed
by US to endeavor to secure q reversal of
the decision of the commissioner, which
has been accomplished. We deem the
case of great Importance to many of our
old settlers, the legal surroundings of the
early marriages and divorces in the terri
tory being affected thereby, and ask you
to give place in your columns for the fol-
lowing ruling of the department. Yours
very truly, FULLER & YOUNG.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, l
WASHINGTON, D. c., Nov. II, 1892. !
CoMMoN-LAw MARRIAGE HARRIET
STRONG (wIDow).
Held, That a common-law marriage is valid
in the territory of Utah, citing cases OF
Thomas rs. the Union Pacific R R.. Utah,
u. .
vs.. Thomas Simpson, Utah, 227; q. S. VS..
John II. Miles. lO3 u. S 303
Assistant Secretary Bussey to the Com
missioner of Pensions, Nov. II. 1892:
Herewith are returned the papers in the
case of Harriet, alleged widow of William
Strong, Mormon battalion, Mexican war,
No. "a, 031.
The soldier died Dec. "a, 1888, and at
the date of his death he was drawing
pension of $50 per month on account of
chronic rheumatism, resulting in disease
of the heart.
June /. 1889, the claimant filed declar-
alton for pension as his widow, in which
she alleged that she and the soldier were
married at Salt Lake city, Utah, July rs,
1862, and that the soldier had formerly
been married to Martha Alvord from
whom he was divorced Aug. %. 1859.
The claim was rejected July II, 1890, on
the ground that claimant was not the
legal widow of the soldier. This rejection
was based on an opinion rendered by your
law division in which the following state.
ment was made:
From the date of the death of the first wife
up 10 the date OF the soldiers death the COM
mon law doctrine OF marriage is not ap-
plicable to this claimant as the same has no
applicability to the Utah territory.
From this action an appeal was taken
May IL. 1892. 1t is shown by the evil
dence that the soldier was married to
Martha Alvord prior to 1860, and the fol-
lowing evidence OF separation denomi-
mated a divorce, executed by said Martha
Alvord (by marriage Martha Strong) and
the soldier appears among the papers:
Know all men by these presents that we, the
undersigned. William Strong and Martha
Strong his wife before her marriage to him
Martha Alvord), do hereby mutually covenant,
promise and agree TO dissolve all the relations
which have hitherto existed between US as hus-
band ana wife. and to keep ourselves separate
and apart from this day forth. In witness
whereof we have hereunto set our hands at
Great salt Lake city, Utah territory, this 18th
day of August, 1859.
WILLIAM STRONG,
MARTHA STRONG.
Signed in the presence Of
DAVID CALDER.
AARON JOHNSON.
Appellant claims to have first been mar
ried to the soldier by Brigham Young,
April II, 1856. Later in the territory of
Utah, she entered into a relation with
the soldier which she terms matrimonial
on the 26th day of July, 1862. 1t appears
that q certain marriage ceremony was
performed on said last date by David h.
Wells, a Mormon elder, between claimant
and the soldier, and claimant lived and
cohabited with the soldier continuously
as his wife in said territory until the sol
dier's death.
About November, 1861, the said Martha
AIvord- Strong (the first wife of soldier),
entered into a relation termed matrimo-
NAL with one Campbell and died Sept
z, 1882. The soldier died Dec. 80, 1888.
1t is not contended that the first mar
riage between the soldier and Martha Al
word was illegal. In fact, for aught that
appears among the papers, it must be con-
sidered to have been legal marriage. 1t
is commended, however, that their Separa-
ton amounted to a divorce. and that the
claimant and the soldier having lived and
cohabited together as husband and wife
after the said separation and the death of
the first wife, legal marriage arose be-
tween the soldier and the claimant.
But that which is submitted as evidence
of separation or dissolution of the first
marriage is only an agreement between
the parties for separation or divorce
which would prevent the granting of
decree.
But, the claimant having lived with the
soldier after the death of the soldiers first /
wife, could a common-law marriage
have taken place under the laws
of Utah after the removal of /
the impediment? In the opinion /
rendered by the law division of your
bureau it is held that the common law as |
to marriage is not applicable TO the Ter |
ritory OF Utah, doubtless because the
general rule is that the common law is
not applicable to the United States as
distinguished from the states, and. con-
sequently, claimant cannot be considered
as the widow of the soldier. But in some
cases, after the organization of territorial /
governments, portions of the common
law have been adopted when de- !