Show rf i1 I n 11 KECEXT JIEIKSHH lIE If f ft THE If i I < CISIOSS It 1 OM Wednesday last the SEWS i k contained en article in reference to I i i a probate CSMS in which the heirs i H 3 of the late Orson Pratt were the i j f P i principal Judge 1artch decided t j 1 f that the Jan of JS76 which giv s all iJ children born out of legal helrshlp I who Veto recognized by Uitir If i jorenLs duriug the lattcrs lifetime i i j is Tali and that the applicants 1j1 i a share in the distribution of the residue of the estate in paint were I t t entitled to it 1 t This decision was commended as I round and sensible It was thown t i In the article that the tame view t could not bo consistently taken of I I the decision ot Judge Anderson in I f the case of Cope vs Cope in which I the same joint was involved I The latter opinion affirmed a Judgment f Judg-ment entered in the Probate Court L f by Judge Marshall lullnt afflrma ticn Associate Justice Anderson de I dared the Territorial statute of 1S7S invalid because In giving the status of helrhip to children born out of legal wedlock it encouraged polygamy I Vesbowedthnt JCtuch encourage t incut was given by the law of 1S76 i I it was more emphatically tendered i t in the Edmunds law of ISS which legitimated nU children barn in the I I lolysamous relation up to January lit 1SS3 I It could readily bo inferred from i i the article that the position i I tAken by Judge Anderson and I that of Judgo Marshall affirmed i bv 1L were Identical in cvprr articular Such however was not the case in one atpett The last named functionary sustained the law of 1S78 as valid but claimed that there was a period dating from 15G2to 1S76 wherein all children born out of legal wedlock were barred from hcirship This Vacuum it was claimed by him was created in this way In 1S52 a Territorial law was enacted and approved similar I sim-ilar to that of 1S78 with the diller ence that the former measure gave f children born out of legal marriage tbo status of htltship bother or not they were recognized by their parents during the life of the latter lat-ter Judge Marshall held that this law encouraged polygamy and was therefore annulled by the con gros ional antipolygamy law of 1S82 Hence that from the last named year till the statute of 1576 was enacted illegitimate children born within these dates had no hcirship right This explanation is made simply that the position of Judge Marshall may not be misunderstood It appears ap-pears that the applicant Cope the son of the late Thomas Cope bj a plural wife was born in the interim defined by Judge Marshall otherwise other-wise the litter would have granted the application nut no still hold that his Honor was in error because be-cause we cannot see that any ouch Interim as the one referred to existed The law of 1S32 was in exact line with that of t5svitIs the exception that in the former recognition of illegitimate children by their JfireiiU was not made an clement to ensure heirship As polygamtsta invariably recognized their children the intent of the measure was evidently to cover all cases including the issue of sporadic spora-dic sexual commerce where parents are not usually ready to acknowledge acknowl-edge their progeny Besides the Congressional law of 1SS2 the 111 murals Act legitimated nil losus of polygamous marriages bom previous pre-vious to Jan 1st 1S33 Cone quently bridged JuJgu Marshall vacuum It may ba held In controversy tbeat heirthlp and legitimacy are distinct conditions They are however how-ever intimately related Per instance in-stance of what articular good would the Military beneficent provision pro-vision of tho Edmunds act bo to the beneficiares children not in anyway any-way responsible for the conditions of their birth if It bimplj placed upon them the legal stamp of legitimacy legiti-macy without relating to any of the rights or privileges growing cut of that status It is not to be presumed pre-sumed that Congress and especially the grim author of the bill had any thought giving the children child-ren born within the plural marriage system a merely sentimental standing i stand-ing The Territorial statutes of 1S52 and 1S76 were plainly in line In this particular with the antipolygaxiy law of 1SS2 Consequently although Judge Marshall did not go so far as Judge Anderson ho was In our Judgment In error In the case in question |