OCR Text |
Show ACUEKS WITH JUI)i;i: rtLACK- iintx. Tub Denver Xact has an article-on article-on Uie recent decision of the Supreme Su-preme Court of I" tah in the case of the heirship dispute connected w ith the estate of Orson PratLand which allects tlie rights of tho children of plural wives as inheritors of their fathers' estate. After defining the has a of the controversy thc .Years says: The case turned on a very simplo mest'on. There was no dispute but that the children bad a right to inherit in-herit under tho Territorial statute of 1-ii The contention was whether ihe act of Congress of July 1, IM2. repealed tho Territorial statute, or whether it did not.. The court held that it did, and so decided. But Judge Blarkburn held that if it did, It was only by implication, whicQ cdatruc-tion cdatruc-tion conld not be affirmod by a court. After conimonting on tho statute of ISfli, he continued: "I mm strengthened xn tnis ortaien by ihe act ot Congren of ISM, called the El -moods act. section 7 of thai ad show that It vat no: the lntentn ot con;res to dUinhem poljeimi.m chilaren. for it says I1 P-JiJKamoM ehilarn bora before the am diy of January. 15 shall be legitimate, iatin; It cleir that in the mind of Congress nothing was intended' by tho act of ! to diiaihert polyanioa caildrea. I be act el the tjUUtaiof Utah says nothing aSout polycamoEi children. chil-dren. It only lays ille jlumite children. Hut .be act ot Cjnes. goes tarther, and iiji that polyetooas cnildren thall be Ugia-inato. Ugia-inato. U. therefore, the Territorial law, by Inference, encoensed and countenanced polygamy, ranch more l.d theliwof Con. gnus aalthatideacannot be anuruloed for oLe moment. I "The case will be taken to thsl Supreme Court of the United States, and Its importance arlsos from the faot tfcst polyganJoas children have been alloweci'ta tnfierltia Uuli ever sirfce 162, and ustil thc passage of tho feimunds law in lii. Judge Blackburn is evidently right. If tho law of 1S52 repealed tho Territorial statute of ls5i there wonld have been no necessity for the act of 1S52. Tho language of the act of 1SS2 makes it dear that Congress regarded tho Utah law as In force, that It also rejarded tho enstom as encouraging polygamy, and benco It fixed a date after which t!:o chlldrcti of fUn wiTea could not inherit. The plain implication Is that up to that date they had the right of inheritance, otherwise other-wise tha act of lwl wonld have been unnecessary and super tluGtis.Tne hih s'anding of senator Kdmnnds. who was tho author of tboactof l?5J,asa lawyer also confirms this vio-v of Judge Blackburn as the correct one. Tliat the opinion ot tho cocrt will bo reversed admits of l'tire doubt. If it noVbeannouuced that the act of ISSi annulled the Utah an of l55i, and for all tbete years the children of polygamous polyg-amous r-Ives have had no right of inheritance, in-heritance, nuir confii-icid wUl fellow in land titles an J much wrong and injustice in-justice bo accomplished. |