Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-08-01


has the following ns an item " nows'
Angus 81. cnnuo9 the Mormon load
er who recently entered O. plea uf Eulill |
10 the charge ~ polyrlmY was hncl |
500 ut Salt Lake cts, july 20
II l. somewhat remarkable that 90
careful paper nH Public opinion
should fail Into the orur whion orii-
nary newspapers have copied from each
other. nut considering the strenuous cf-
forts ~ religious ministers. ocho.ng tho
psrvefslona 81 their Salt Lake brethren,
to impress the country with tho idea
that the Mormon" people have 'vio-
lated their pledges 10 the nation" ana
that "polygnmous marriages are ftiu
being contracted In Utah % IL not SUR
prslng that editors Of country papers
arr deceived.
The oriFinatorH of tho falaehoud un-
dotrtnnd the question involved in the
present agitation On Utah anmrs. the
country and the majority Of the Grcfa
do not. In the past controversy uf the
government with the Mormon" people
two points were prominent. they were
plural marriage. and the association u
persons who had entered into that re-
latlon. They had to Do met BY separate
provisions Of law.
The Edmunds Act defined the mean
inE ~ the term polygumy Section one
provided that.
Every person who has q husband or
wife living who. boz "a Territory ur other
place over which tho United states have
exclusive Jurisdiction. hereafter mug-
rica another. whether married uf single
o. guilty Of pplyrnmy, and shall
b. punished by a me N not more than
I'VE hundred dollars ana hy imprlsun-
mont Cor n term u not more than hvc
years
PolyRamy then. means the act ~
marrying more than one wife, url a
heavy penalty n Imposed upon any pcr-
aon who commits that offence. Hut the
association of perrons Ia that family
relation was made another oncnc" un-
der another name and with a dlnorcat
penalty. II was aa follows
THAT n any male person, IN Terri
tory or other place over which tie
United States have exclusive ildHdic-
tlon, hereafter cohablia with moro thun
one woman. he shall be guilty NJ mis-
dcmennor and on conviction thereof
shall be punished BY o fno of not more
than three hundred dollars. or by Inn
priaonment for not more thln xix
months. or by both said puulnhmcnia.
In the discretion u the court"
These provisions are now obsolete ns
United States enactmcnts In their APP
plication 60 Utah. because they were
for Territory and Utah IL now
State hut they have been Incorporated
In the Revised Statutes u Utah and
form part OF It's code.
But the greater statutory offence Of
che two. that IL polygumy IL practically
extinct In this State. This is what our
eastern contemporaries should under
stand. The prosecution referred 90 by
Public opinion was not Tor polygamy
That offence was not charged. II o.
the lesser violation Of the state law
that was IA question, There are no
prosecutions for pulygamy, because
there are no cases 10 prosecute Yhls
distinction ought To be- clear 20 our
contemporaries.
The situation Il this; 4 number 81
''nale persons" when the state entered
tho Union had. many years before. con-
tracted plural marriages, BY "a ceremony
regarded by them ms sacred and bind
irE upon them fur time and an eternity.
They were not expected 10 cast their
wives aside. II may be argued that
they were not expected TO live with
them In unlawful association hut "
they were not 10 turn them adrlft. to
dissolve the relation OF wife aud hus.
band. they would Htlll regard their
union as under solemn and eternal
covenant and such that no earthly
power could dissolve, n under those
conditions there have boon some cases
Of infracuou uf law u IL not HurpriI-
ing. ana untll a recent political and re-,
llgious agitation commenced, no special
attention was directed towards them.
Under the rulings ~ the courts dur,
iug the Federal prosecutions, "uulIW,
ful cohabltatnn" was construed q,
mean tho association ~ q man with
murc than one woman "us his wives
The recognition OF them as wives uut
asoclatng with them, cyou though
no sexual Intimacy WINS charged
formed the body Of the offence, Thpr,
has been no ruling Of the state COURT
on this point because there has hoor
but one case Of unlawful Capitalization
completed, In which there was no de-
fence, ana there ~ one case pending.
We would not touch on this subipc
again but for the fact that there is
widespread misIuformutluu upon II
again but FOR the fact that thrre q
state II was Of course under the term
OF the Enabling Act which rcauircO
that "polygamous OF plural marriage