The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-11-24

fled before the referee in the escheat
cases that he did not see how the effect
of the Woodruff manifesto could fall
short of unlawful cOhabitatiOn- He was
asked particularly about that. whether or
not this manifesto did include unlawful
cOhabitatiOn with wives that had been
married prior to the manifesto. He an
swered, L do not see how the effect can
be otherwise In December of that same
year this defendant. together with others,
officers of the church of which he is now
president sent petition to President
Harrison, spoken of now as the petition
for amnesty, in which he stated that he
and his people had put aside pOlygamy,
and represented to the president in the
most solemn terms that it was no longer
taught by their church nor practiced by
their peOple-that it was a thing of the
past I understand that the petition for
amnesty mentions only plural marriages,
but that the presidents proclamation
based upon that petition expressly men,
tons not only plural marriage. but pO-
lygamy. cOhabitation. unlawful cohabita-
ton. These terms are mentioned in that
proclamation no less than five or six
times. so that the president of the United
States understood that document Just as
il would be understood by any one read
ing it now, that it applied not only to the
question of new polygamous wives but to
the practice of pOlygamy or living in IN
lawful cohabitation.
Testimony in Washington.
In March. 1904 this defendant testified
at Washington before the senate com
mittee in substance that unlawful CO.
habitation was contrary to the rule of the
church and was contrary as well to the
law of the land, and that he was living
in that conditiOn-tiat is. in unlawful CO.
habitation. | take it, your honor. that
this circumstance of showing that this
defendant knows now and has known
during all these years that this was
against the law of this state and the stat
1rfD Of tnf 70 rar1R~ffnd
male person hereafter cOhabits with more
than one woman he shall be guilty of
miSdemeanOr and on conviction thereof
shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $500 or by Imprisonment in the
county Jail for not more than six months,
or by both of said punishments in the
discretion of the court. A section sub
stantially as this one now reads has been
in effect i'm this state and territory during
all the times | have mentioned 1t has
been against the law of this state. against
the law of the land for a man 10 live in
unlawful cOhabitation.
Objects of Punishment.
"Now, the object of punishment is two
fold-to punish the offender and to pre-
vent his example leading other persons
into the practice of the same particular
offense for which he is convicted. and
submit TO your honor that penalty
should be imposed in this case that will
prevent other persons from continuing the
practice of unlawful Capitalization.
ut is a matter Of common knowledge
here that since statehood there have been
quite number of prosecutions for unlaw-
full cohabitatiOn, the exact number l can
not state now. but in these cases fines
have been imposed. 1t is also a matter
of common knowledge that the imposition
of these fines has done nothing TO pre-
vent the practice of Dolygamy or living
in the condition of unlawful cohabitation
of persons who then had other wives and
who were as this defendant says he was
under obligations to support them and
take care of them.
Fines of No Avail.
THE imposition Of fines in these cases