Show COHABITATION i J 1 Al j The Supreme Court Sustains j I Judge Z ne 1 I I I DECISION RENDER D I MONDAY f r H Justices Miller and Field Dissent The Opinion of trfe First Named Judge Q Cannon Case Decided WASHINGTON December 14 The Supreme Court today affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah in the case Angus M Cannon plaintiff in error against the United States Cannon was indicted under the Edmunds act for unlawful cohabitation with more than one woman The defendant objected to the giving of any evidence on the ground that the indictment indict-ment did not allege that he was a male person nor that cohabitation was with the women as wives The objection was overruled and a verdict of guilty returned and the defendant sentenced to pay a fine of 300 and to be imprisoned im-prisoned for six months and to be further imprisoned till the payment of thl fine The principal question was The proper construction of Section 3 depending de-pending on the meaning of the word cohabit as used init and Judge Biatchford In his OpInIOn says The court pjopgrly charged the jury that the detendant was to be found guilty if hp livred jn the same house with the three women and ate at their respective tables pnethird of his lime or thereabouts there-abouts and held out to the world by his language or conduct all as his wives and that it was not necessary it should be shewn that he and the three women or either of them occupied occu-pied the same bed or slept in the same room or that he had sexual sex-ual intercourse with them It is the practice of unlawful cohabitation cohabita-tion with more than one woman this t th-is aimed at a cohabitation classed with polygamy and having its outward semblance sem-blance It is not on the one hand i meretricious unmarital intercourse with more than one woman general legislation as to lewd practices is left to i the Territorial Government nor on tho other hand does the statute pry intd i the intimacies of the marriage relation re-lation hut it seeks not only tdi punish bigamy and polygamy when direct proof of the existence ol these relations can be made but to prevent a man from flaunting in the face of the world the ostentation and opportunities of a bigamous household with all the outward appearances ot the continuance of the same relations whicu existed before the act was passed and I without reference to what may occur II in the privacy of those relations f And again in th ° spirit of the interpretation I inter-pretation a man cohabits with more than one woman in Secions 3 5 ami IS of the act when holding out to the world two women as his wives by language or conduct or by bptH he lives in the house with them and eats at the table of each a portion of his time Although he doesjnot occupy the same bed or sleep in the same room with either of them or actually has sexual intercourse with either of thorn he holds two women out to the world as hti wives by his conduct when he maintains two wives and the I children of each all in the samo hojise with himself and regularly eats at the table of each and acts as the head of the two families The opinion gives Websters definition of the word cohabit and says Section 3 of the act was intended to reach the exhibition of all indicia of marriage a household and a family twice repeated Objection to the indictment because it does not allege that the defendant was a male person nor that he cohabited with two women as his wives or as persons per-sons held out as wives tire Qverruled under the criminal procedure act of Utah defendant havins pleaded and not demurred and bting held to have understood distinctly that the charge was against the male person and was for with cohabiting with the women as wives and not having been prejudiced preju-diced by the failure to so allege The opinion concludes with the statement state-ment that a strong appeal was made in the argument not to uphold the rulings ot the trial court because that would require the pol gamou huband not only to cease living with his plural wives but also to abandon the women themselves and the Supreme Court of the Onited States was asked to indicate what the conduct of the husband towards to-wards them must be in order to conform con-form to the requirement of the law The law says no court can say in advance what particular state 01 things wil be lawful further than that mon must not cohabit with more than one woman in the sense of the word cohabit as defined de-fined while Congress had legitimatized the issue of polygamous marriages born before January 1st 1883 it had left the conduct of the man towards the polygamous wife to be regulated by considerations which outside of Section 3 are not covered by the statute and which must be dealt with judicially when properly presented pres-ented From the decision of the Court Justices Jus-tices Miller and Field dissented Justice Jus-tice Miller in his dissention of the decision saia I think the act ofCon gresswhenproliibting cohabitation unlawful more than one woman meant habitual sexual intercourse It is in tion of my opinion a strained ronstru a highly penal statute to hold tuuo the men can be guilty under That statute without the accompaniment of actual sexual connection i know of no instance in-stance in which the wqrd Vc ° nablal tion has been used to describe a criminal crim-inal offense when ifc did not imply sexual intercourse p |