The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-06-12


Of Judge william nfIs N NJ me- mecafsS ssstlmSns ons
Sprcme Sa 1hs coT asSoSatS Sf JUSTICES Of The
ant United States attorney for the Terri
! tory OF utnh from 1889 until 1902 when
ne was elected county attorney of Sewer
| county, N that Territory. He was re-
elected In 1894. In 1896 he was elected one
OF the district judges of tho State of
He was reelected to that Office in 1900.
! and In 1902 was elected to his present Of
nee. He is non-Mormon, and has al
! ways been an uncompromislng Opponent
! OF polygamy. He conducted some OF the
! prosecutions for polygamous cohabita-
ilon between the date of tho manifesto,
| In lSSo, and tho admission of the State
| tlfied
| l prosecuted them before the United States
commissioners up until 1898 whom tho United
| States Attorney refused to allow my accounts
! for services for TINT kind OF work and then
quit and confined my Investigations before
| tho grand jury In those cuses
And Judge McCarty further testified
! that the superior to whom he referred as
! stopping the prosecution for polygamous
eohabitation was John W. Judd, a Cen
In 1897 some prosecutions for polyga-
| nous combinations against men who
were married before the manifesto came
! before Judge McCarty as district judge
| of the State. The accused In those cases
admitted their guilt and were punished
by hne only, upon agreeing TO cease
| Judge McCarty testified that IL was after
| these pros ecutions he obtained the first
emphatic expression he had observed as
TO the. state of public opinion in Utah at
! that time regarding such prosecutions
He said that he found the press was
against the prosecutions: that the public
prosecutor, whose attention he invited TO
| the matter. refused to proceed. From
! this and other facts which came TO his
| knowledge Judge McCarty reached the
| conclusion that the public sentiment OF
| the State was against interfering with
| men In their polygamous relations who
| had married before the manifesto. CVol
| E, B. Critchlow. a Gentle lawyer. OF
| Salt Lake City. who prepared the prin-
cipal protests In this case and who. during
| the early sittings of the committee as
| sisted MIR. Tayler. counsel for the protest
| ants. In presenting their case. testified
as witness on behalf OF the protestants
| that after the manifesto OF 1896 there was
| no inclination on the part of the prose-
| cutting officer to push these matters as
TO present cohabitation," thinking 1t WAS
| a matter that would Immediately die
out" that IL was we'll known that Apos-
tie John Henry Smith was living in un-
| lawful consultation; that non-Mormons
| they were disposed ito let things go"
and that that was the general feeling
| from the time of the manifesto in lsa0
down to very recent times-pretty nearly
| up TO date or practically up TO date. "
| Mr.. Critchlow further testified that the
| Mormons were disposed 10 overlook
| the continuous conhDltatlOn
of those who had taken plural wives be-
| fore the manifesto, because they-thc
| nom Mormons-fet satisfied that there
would be no more plural marriages; that
| the thing would work itself out In the
future. and that where the polygamists
| had their wives in separate houses and
simply kept up the old relations without
| public IL had been practically passed over.
| Vol. l, ga. e25)
Another witness called on behalf OF the
Ffra 1rnfQ nTla nd a
| leading lawyer of Utah. a non-Mormon,
who was associate justice of the supreme
court OF the Territory OF Utah In 1885 and
1856 and whose testimony In general
| shows his strong feeling against the
| Mormon Church. He testified that,
speaking for those who fought the church
party In the days when II was a power.
they had felt and still feel that II tho
| church would stop new plural marriages.
| those who had contracted such marriages
| before the manifesto would not be Inter
| fered with. After stating that the peo-
| pie who lived In the East had no under
| standing of the situation In this regard
in Utah. Judge Powers added:
| That condition exists. There is question
for statesmen 10 solve. We have not known
what was best to do. 1t hos been discussed.
| and people would say that such and such a
man ought TO DO prosecuted. Then they would
| consider whether anything would be gained
ing the time that hope 10 live TO see:
| whether tho institution would not flourish by
! reason of what they would term peroecutlons
sent down hero to you. I will say to you the
people have acquiesced in the condition that
| exists.
Then the witness added that by Tho
$3.50
William J. Mcconnell. ex-governor OF
! Idaho and ex-senator of the United
States from that State. when asked
| whether there was any public sentiment
in Idaho In reference 10 prosecutions for
simply unlawful cohabitntion. as distin-
| 1loh. frnn
Tiages. replied:
II was understood and agreed when We
adopted our State constitution and were ad-
who had plural families would be allowed &c
support their wives and children without mo-
lcstation. 1t was agreed by oil parties. Demo,
Gratis and Republicans alike. that they should
be allowed to drift along Wo could, under
the law, have prosecuted these people and
| perhaps have sent them 10 jail We could
doubtless have broken up these families, but
we felt 1t better that these mon should be al
lowed to support these old women and thoe'
children than TO further pcrseeute them q
5E2J.
| This witness was sharply cross-exam-
ined by Mr.. Taylcr and by the chairman n
on this subject with the result that he
made his testimony more emphatic q,
524. 500.
on his redirect examination he further
stated that he agreed 10 the foregoing
testimony Of Mr.. Critchlow and Dir. Pow
ers q, 53l. 52).
F. II. Holzheimer, a leading lawyer OF
Idaho, who was practlcing ms prolessioI
in Utah until November, 1892, testihec
that the issuing OF the manifesto OF lsst
brought about a very peculiar state ol
affairs. and that the question OF now te
take care of the problem was one whict
confronted the people of Utah, and ~hlct
! the witness did not think they nave really
solved
; He added
The consensus OF opinion at that time wa
that those who had contracted marriages PHO
10 the manifesto should DO left alone. II wa
not however. believed that thsy should openL
violate tho law and unlapfully cohaoit Wit
their numerous wives. l Will say that tho
where that has occurred II has been mostly II
$ isolated cases. There have boon number
cases where children have been born. but II
? | no case that / know OF has II been done open
[ ly. II Is true IL is against the law. but
| hns not been done in such an open. leWd man
nor as has been lntimated nor has IL bee
general And because OF the peculiar stat
| OF analra Il was tho opinion that the Who'll
thing would die out. that II was only mat
ter OF a short time when the question Woul
be entirely settled. because there would be n
+. | new marriages e. 66-SI6),
l Frank Martin. a lawyer OF Idaho. test
q fled that he believed those VINO were liI
7 | Ipn In C0hu bltatIOD In nj