OCR Text |
Show COURT PROCEEDINGS.' Third Distriot Court, Emerson, A-J. A-J. Presiding. MARCU TERM- TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY. Thursday, April 1, 1875. Court convened at 9 o'clock, a. m. Tho United States vs. Georgo Reynolds, Rey-nolds, indicted for violation of tho anti-polygamy act of 1SC2 ; District Altornwy Carey for tho prosecution, Sutherland t Bates for the defense; A. S. Patterson, Esq., court roporter. Tho prosecution oflered to put Daniol H. Wells on tho witness stand to provo that he performed the marriage mar-riage ceremony for George Reynolds and Amelia J. Schofield, on the 3d of August, 1S74. Tho defense admitting tiat tins was a fact, tho prosoculiou closed its case. The defense then oflered to put witneasos en the stand to testify to the correc.tnpss of thfl fnllnwinr umivui. tiou : The defense offer to prove that on the 12th day of July, 18-43, and ior many years before, a numerous ro-ligiuus ro-ligiuus sect commonly called Mormons, Mor-mons, existed in the United States; that on that day a revelation from God won received by them, enjoining celestial or plural marriage as a religious re-ligious duty nod a sacrament; that a largo number of Mormons possessing this revelation and desiring to obey th commands contained iu it, emigrated emi-grated in a body from the states where they had previously lived, and on the 2-ith day of July, 1847, arrived at Salt Lake, where this court is now being held. Here they settled for a i permanent home on territjry belong-1 iug to the republic of Mexico. That' hero they became citizens of that republic, re-public, pursuant to the laws thereof; that they were brought with the territory ter-ritory of Utah within the jurisdiction ot the United States by the treaty between be-tween the United states and Mexico in 184S; that at all times after receiving receiv-ing said revelation, during their migration mi-gration to and always after their arrival ar-rival in this territory, polygamy, aa enjoined in said revelation, baa been taught to and believed in and practiced prac-ticed among them, as a sacred duty made known to them by said revelation; revela-tion; that its effect has been benign morally and physically; that it is practiced prac-ticed as a cardinal and vital part of their religion, and not at alt as a cloak to lustful pleasure; that in this territory there are now at least 120,000 Mormons, Mor-mons, nearly all of whom have been reared here, owe their birth to, plural marriages, or are in some other way connected by sacred ties to that coniueal institution called nolvo. I amy; that they believe it to be a divine institution, and that they will be indebted for their highest happiness happi-ness in another life to their fidelity and obedience to it in this; that this defendant holds their faith, that he is and has been tor more than ten years a member of the Mormon church, and a sincere believer in the verity of said revelation, and that it was his solemn duty to obey it; that this is the first prosecution for polygamy iu this territory; that he, in common with other intelligent Mormons, has always believed that the act of congress con-gress of 1S62, purporting to make polygamy a crime, is contrary to the constitution of the United States, and that for this reason no prosecutions under it have been hitherto instituted; that Mormons generally, and this defendant de-fendant in particular, are so firmly grounded in the faith of their church, and in a belief in said revelation, that they regard the said act of congress con-gress as having been passed in consequence conse-quence of a misconception ot the religious character of the Mormon people, and that it imposes under the name of punishment an additional cross which they must bear to fulfil their duties; that, while they naturally natur-ally shrink from these pains and penalties, they are all willing to bear them rather than lose the high estate in another life to bo gained by celestial celes-tial marriage. The prosecution objected to the introduction in-troduction of testimony on the above, on account of irrelevancy. Objection sustained, and defendant excepted. The defense introducing no evidence evi-dence the case closed, and was submitted sub-mitted without argument. The court charged the jury as follows- Gentlemen of the Jury: The defendant de-fendant is charged with the violation States, viz. : Every person having husband or wife living, who shall marry aoyobarper-ton, aoyobarper-ton, whether married or (ingle, in a territory ter-ritory of the United States or other place over which the United States have exclusive ex-clusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the i cases specified io tho proviso to this section, sec-tion, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and upon conviction thereof shall bo puniBOf d by & fino not exceeding five hundred dollri, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years: Provided, nevertheless, that this section shall not extend to any person, by reason of any furmer marriage, whoso husband or wife by such marriego, sball have beoo absent ab-sent for five successive years without being be-ing known to such person within that time to be living; nor any person by reason rea-son of any former marriage which Bhall have been dissolved by tbe decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marrisgo which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by tho sentence or decree of a competent com-petent court on the ground of the nullity of tbe marriage contract. I instruct you that congress had the power to pass this law, and that it is not in violation of any provision of the constitution; in other words, that it is constitutional, and that a person who is guilty of entering into such a marriage as is prohibited by this statute is guilty of crime. And I further instruct yon that tho respondent's religious belief can have noLhing to do with the case. He can not Bhield himself from the punishment punish-ment for doing what the law declares to be a crime under a plea that the act is in accordance with his religious belief. Religious liberty is not violated vio-lated when the citizen is called upon to answer for his external acts, which are in violation of a valid law of t-e laud. Before you can lawfully convict the rTvMi.l.ml vnn mnaf. find fmm thp facts, either proved or admitted before be-fore you in evidence, that while a prior legal marriage existed between him and the person named in the indictment in-dictment as Mary Jaue Tuddenham, he entered into such a relation with the person named in tho indictment as Amelia J. Sehoneld, as would have been a valid marriage itselt. There is no statute in this territory prescribing a form of marriage or designating any particular persons before whom tho ceremony must be performed or the agreement entered into. To constitute- a marriage here where there are no civil requirements, require-ments, a simple expression of mutual consent between tho parties, to be henceforth man and wife, is sufficient without the solemnities. The first marriage is admitted by the defendant, by his counsel, in your hearing, and besides you have the te?timony of a party who was present at the ceremony, who says he saw them married. This marriage onca proved to exist aud the wife shown to oo still living, it is incumbent upon tho respondent to show that it has been annulled before be-fore he can avoid tho consequences flowing from this relation. If you rind that while a former marriago existed, and within two years from the finding of this indictment (the 20th of October last) ho entered into such a relation with the party named in the indictment, as would bo a valid marriage, but for the prior matrimonial matrimon-ial union, your verdict fchould be guilty. In order to make out their cobo against tho respondent, the government govern-ment has only to establish these two facts, viz: a prior valid marriage with a woman still living,and a subsequent marriage while the prior one existed , wuhiu the time I have mentioned, that would have been valid but for the prior m irriiitte. Aa in all criminal cases, so in this, tho respondent is iutitlud to any rca-soNablo rca-soNablo doubt you may have as to hii guilt. That is, whether he actually contracted a second marriage while the prior ono existed. This doubt should not be a cjinLioiiB one that vou have to seek after to hunt up, under a deeire to screen the respondent, but a fair reasonable doubt, such a one as would naturally arise in tho ndnd of a reasonable man, as to the existence of any fact which is necessary Uj be Bhown to exist, in order to make out the act which constituted the crime charged. The facts have been few, and I apprehend you will have no difficulty in arriving at a correct conclusion. con-clusion. Tho jury retired and after being out forty-five minutes returned the following verdict. We, the jury in the case of the United States rs. George Reynolds, find a verdict of guilty, and recommend recom-mend the prisoner to the mercy of the court. , The following motion wag made: The defendant by his counsel moves the court to set aside the verdict in this case, and to arrest judgment, on th ground that there has been a mis-trial, the defendant not having been arraigned and not having : pleaded to the indictment. The district attorney said if it v, ere true that the prisoner had not been called upon to plead, he would admit the grounds of the motion, and consent con-sent to the verdict being Bet aside; and upon the prisoner st ding that he had not heard the indictment read, the court eustained the motion, setting set-ting aside the verdict. District Attorney Cirey then insisted in-sisted upon going into a new trial of the case immediately; hut the defense de-fense desiring to carry the case to the I higher courts, withdrew the motion to set aside the verdict, and waiving all technicalities, consented to the arraignment and plea being entered nunc pro tunc. Matters getting somewhat tangled and there being a question as to what could and should be done in the case, it was laid over till Tuesday next, the prisoner being released on a bond of '$5,000. The people, etc , vs. Charles Carr, indicted for larceny; tho defendant appeared aud withdrew the plea of i not guilty, made on Wednesday, and entered the plea of guilty as charged in the indictment. The pronouncing of sentence by the court was deferred. The People, etc., vs. Archelaus Barratt, indicted for murder for the killing of Elizabeth Saunders at Alta, Little Cottonwood, last year; the prisoner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. On the introduction and recommendation recom-mendation of P. L. Williams, Esq., Zera Snow, Esq., a graduate of the law department of the Michigan University, was admitted to the bar. Court adjourned till Friday morning morn-ing at 10 o'clock. |