OCR Text |
Show JUDGE POWERS' EXPLANATION. The Grand Jury Ask for Instructions Instruc-tions Regarding the "Putting Away" of Polygamous ; Wives. ' Yesterday afternoon at Ogden the Grand Jury of the First Judicial District came into court and informed Judge Powers Pow-ers that they wished instructions on certain cer-tain points of the Edmunds law. The following letter to His Honor and his reply thereto, both of which are given in full, will explain themselves : . Ogden, Utah, December 23, 1885. To the Honorable O. W. Powers, Judge of the First District Court : The Grand Jury most respectfully ask to be instructed on the following point : Assuming As-suming that the Edmunds law contemplates the putting away by the husband of one or more of his polygamous wives in order that he may live within the requirements of said law, is it necessary that the act of putting away should be done publicly? And if so, what would constitute reasonable publicity? Very respectfully, . J. W. McNurr, Foreman. Following is the reply of Judge Powers : Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: The query you put to the Court is substantially the same as was asked the Supreme Court of the United States by the attorney for the defendant de-fendant in the case of the United States vs. Angus M. Cannon, which was recently decided. de-cided. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to answer the question; declined to state how a man who had polygamous wives could live and live within the law, but said he must not live in a way that would cause the outside public to believe from his actions ac-tions and conduct that he was living or associating as-sociating with the women as his wives. As to whether or not THE ACT Oi" PUTTING AWAY . Be done publicly, I think it hardly necessary neces-sary to answer, for, if a man pats away his wives, ceases to live with them or associate with them in a manner that causes the public pub-lic to believe that he is living with them as wives, whether it is done publicly (the putting put-ting away), or whether it is done privately, makes no difference. In other words, it would make no difference as to a man's guilt, if he should from the house-tops declare de-clare that he had put away his plural wives, but should continue by his acts should continue con-tinue by his conduct, to cause the public generally to believe that he was living with the women as a husband lives with his wives. The whole intent and matter of the Edmunds Ed-munds law is to do away with THE EVIL EXAMPLE OF LIVING IN POLYGAMOUS POLYGA-MOUS MARRIAGE The example that is set before the public and whenever a man by holding out women as wives, by associating with them as a husband hus-band associates with his wife, by conducting himself toward them as a husband conducts himself toward his wife, he is guilty under the law. So the manner of putting away has but little to do with it; it is the conduct; it is the outward appearance; it is continuing continu-ing to associate or live as husband and wife; it is causing the public to believe that these parties are so living. Upon that act, of i cause, before you can find an indictment you should be satisfied from the evidence that the facts are such as would cause a conviction con-viction by a trial jury, and be satisfied, as I say, from the facts, that THE CONDUCT OF THE MAN IS A PUBLIC REPROACH; RE-PROACH; In other words, that it causes the public to believe he is associating with women as a husband associates with his wife. The mere act of putting away wives is of no materiality; materi-ality; the mere act of separation is of no materiality, unless it be followed np by separation. sep-aration. Jhe mere change, or change of circumstances, does not make an excuse. A man may, in avery public manner, in church, or in a public meeting, or at any public place, with his wives drawn about him, declare de-clare he had put them all away except his lawful wife, might place them in different houses and still he might, by his outside conduct be, to all intents and purposes, living and associating with them as a husband hus-band fives and associates with his wives. He must so live that he will not cause the outside world to believe he is living with them as wive3 or holding them out as wives. I had occasion to remark in the case of the United States vs. A. M. Musser that a husband hus-band who had hfien divnrned from hia wife would not be expected to continue wifely relations re-lations with her, and still HE MIGHT CONTINUE FRIENDLY RELATIONS And while possible he would be compelled to support her and her children. Still, he could act no longer toward her as his wife. So, since the passage of this Edmunds law, where the fact of polygamous cohabitation has appeared, a man cannot longer cohabit, that is, hold out, associate with or live, as a husband, with the women to whom he has been previously married. |