OCR Text |
Show WOMAN'S EXPONENT. 166 7 ' On .Msy.22,i that the defendant had lived with only one Whitejior reiusiug w ausHCf peisumu questions - wife stfice the passago - of the Edmunds law, to her relations with Jared Roundy, that he hail not even visited other portions of in regard was sent to the penitentiary, under the same his family except to call for a lew moments D roof-witmurderers, burglars andother-convicts-- he h sup"speak to one ofhissons,- but because and confined there until July 7th, the his wives and'children. and did not ut- ported Grand Jury being kept over and not discharged To" the Honorable President, and the Senate and entirely cast them on, unaer instructerly and Home oj llq.rttentatives of the United tions of Orlando V. Powers he was "for the purpose of protracting her imprisonJudge ' of a new terra. States in Congress Assembled, v convicted three times for the alleged offense ment until the beginning In the court of U. S. Commissioner McKay, and sentenced in each case to ihe full penalties re Gentlemen We, your memorialists, of the law. a?2recatimr 8900 fine besides costs, Jane 20, 1885, Elizabeth Ann Starkey wa3 of mas a that at meeting represent spectfully the Judge brought in as a witness against Charles JS. f ! TT. months' and .1.1 f . il . Tl. . . il.'. imprisonment, eighteen li j the women oi uian, neiu m ine iiieaire, oaii, White.. On refusing to answer the question, is his instructions to the jury. sta it attended March ingin 6, 1886,. Lake City, by oyer not "Have you ever in this county, within the last ' necessary that the evidence should show two thousand ladies, representing the wives, that the defendant and these women, or either two years, occupied the same bed with defendmother?, Bisters and daughters oi thewhole of them, occupied the same bed, slept in the ant," she was sentenced to one day's imprisonwas the following unanimously Territory, ment and a fine of $50, and placed in the custhe same roof" "The same room or dwelt under .T ' . adopted: tody of the U. S. Marshal until payment. offense 6f cohabitation is complete, when a On June.22nd, she again declined to answer, Here followed the resolutions, which were man, to all outward appearances, is living or and was fined $100 andcommitted Until payassociating with two or more women as his published in the last issue of this paper. Ed. ment. wives. we In pursuance of this appointment preOn June 24th she refused to answer similar The women who are dependent upon the in the women behalf of. the sent following with as their whom men husbands, personal questions to the grand jury, and was they regard of Utah: ' whom they have lived, as they have regarded committed to the penitentiary until August On the 22nd of March, 1882, an act ofit, in honorable wedlock, must not only be 21st, but was again imprisoned and kept till Congress was passed whicfy is now.,c3mmonly October 6th. While- m prison 8he was ap- separated from their society, and protection, known as:thc Edmunds law, It was generally but must be treated a3 outcasts and be driven proached and grosslyinsulted by an employe understood to have been framed for the pur- -' iprth with their children to shame and distress, of the Marshal's. pose of settling what is called the Utah quesfor the bare "association" of friendship is On the 15th of September, .1885, Eliza tion, by condoning plural marriages up to that counted a crime and punished with all the Shafer was sent to the penitentiary for refusing date and preventing their occurrence in severity inflicted upon those who have not in to answer the question, "Have you, within three and also to protect the home, maintain way severed their plural family rela years past, lived and cohabited with J. W. the integritv-o- f the family and shield innocent any tions. Court ordered herim Snell as his wife?,L-T- he women and ch i I d ren "fro m t he trou b es that In order to fasten the semblance of guilt until the question was answered. might arise from its enforcement; But instead upon men accused of this offense, women are prisonment On 15th, 1880, Mrs Martha J? . of being administered and executed in this arrested and taken before sixteen men CannonFebruary forcibly into the Third District spirit, it ha3 been made the means of inflicting and plied with questions that no decent woman Grand the Court, and Jury complained that upon the women of Utah immeasurable sorrow cau hear without a blush. Little children are exshe would not answer certain questions, among and unprecedented indignities, of disrupting amined upon the secret relations of their pa them the following: "Are you not now a pregfamilies, of destroying homes, and of outragand wives in regard to their own condi rents, nant woman?" "Are you not now with child ing the tenderestand finest feelings of human tion'-an- d the;, doings of their husbands. If by your husband, George Q. Cannon?" On nature. , . decline to answer they are imprisoned in L still declining to auswer.the Court adjudged her The law has been so construed by the Courts thiy the penitentiary a3 though they were criminals. guilty of contempt, and,.pendiug sentence she as to bring its penalties-tbear upon the inA few instances we will cite for your considerawas placed under bonds of S2.500,;whicb were nocent. Men who had Jiouestly arranged with tion: . sabsequehtly raised to $5,00,?. their fa mines so as to keep "within., the J i m is In4he Third District On March 2nd, 1886, Miss Huldah Winters of the law, have been punished with the great Annie Gallifant, having been asked by the est possible severity, and their wives and childGrand Jury a number of questions which she was arrested by Deputy Marshal Vandercook ren have been forced before courts and grand declined to auswer, one of them being as to at her home in Pleasant Grove, forty miles disj uries, and compelled to disclose the most sacred the namet)f the man to whom she was married, tant, no charge being preferred against her and private relations which in all civilized she was brought into court, and still declining, but it .was suspected that she was a plural wife of George Q. Cannon. She was brought to countries are held sacred to the parties. The was sent to the where, although penitentiary meaning of the law has been changed so many daily expecting to become a mother, she was Salt Lake City and conducted to the. court times that no one can say definitely what is its till the Grand Jury was discharged. On house, where she was required to furnish bonds kept for $5,000 for her appearance from time to signification, Those who have lived by. the the trial of John Connelly, she was again time as she might be wantedr law, as interpreted in one case, find, "as soon brought into court and asked: "When did ii3 they: are entrapped, that a new ren Under the suspicion that any woman or you first cohabit with your husband?" is to make constructed it applicable toJ dering "How long after you commenced cohabityoung lady is some man's plural wife she is their own. Under the latest ruling, a man ing with your husband was it that your child liable at any time to be arrested, not merely who has contracted, plural marriages, no matsubpeenaed, but taken by force by deputy mar wa3 born?"' ter at how remote a date, must not only repudi13. Harris was sentenced to fine and shals and brought before a grand jury and ex Miss ate his fativilies and "cease all connection with 7 n and insulted by the imprisonment in the Second District Court at amined and them, but if he is known to associate with Beaver, by Judge Twiss, because she'declined rrosecutmg Attorney or his minions. But them in the most distant mauner, support them is not all. In defiance of law and the this to answer whether she was married woman, $ and show any regard whatever for their weland If so, who was her husband. She was usages of courts for ago, the legal wife is now fare, the offense of unlawful cohabitation is taken to the penitentiary, a building used for compelled to submit to the same indignities. considered to have been fully established, and the confinement of criminals' of. the most hideOu Feb. 20, 1886 in the Third District Court he h liable to exorbitant fines and imprisonous types, with her babe in her arms, and in the second trial of Isaac Langton upon ment for an indefinite period, ono district judge failed to fasten the leaving one behind with her mother. When whom the prosecution-haholding that a separate iudictment may be asked the questions mentioned, by the grand slightest evidence of guilt, Prosecuting Atfound for each day of such association and she answered, "Gentlemen, yiu have no torney Dickson exclaimed: "If. the Court will jury, recognition. In the case of Solomon Edwards, legal right to ask this questioir; and I decline allow me I would like to call Mrs. Langton" recently accused of Jhis offense, it was proven to answer it." (delendant s legal wife.) After a strong pro by the evidence for the prosecution, that the The question was an insult and a vile in-from the attorneys fur the defendant, the test defendaut had lived with one wife only since n uation of departed vi rtue; and yet were she Court permitted the outrage and against her the passage of the Edmunds Act, but after a no such public question would ever and her husband's consent,, she was compelled having separated from h3 former plural wife, be asked.prostitute, She was fined $25 and imprisoned to testify for the prosecution: the evidence he called with his legal wife at the former's' 'i i . i i ii .1 i uiree uuu a uau monms, when she was released however completely exonerating the husband, residence to obtain a child, an agreement havby Judge Twiss. She is a lady with strength who was discharged. ing been made that- each party should have of character, who was defending a principle-he- r But this has now been set up as a precedent, one of the two children, and the court ruled as a fitness was as right sacred as any and within the past few days a legal wife has that this was unlawful cohabitation in the in courts. - She was a recognized right been taken before the Grand Jury, as many meaning of the. law, and defendant was conto personal right, and in defense of amartyr vital have been before, who refused to give evidence, victed. principle of freedom. The was but this time was compelled to answer the In the case of Lorenzo Snow, now on apdirected tdher knowledge of question not any crime, but peal to the Supremo Court of. the United. to her by the public prosecutor relation to another, she not beius questionsthepropounded social the evidence lawful for the husband. States, against prosecution showed charged with any crime. We also direct your attention to the out- States in relation to the treatment received ny the people of Utah, have completed their work, . and the fallowing is the MEMORIAL. " , - L' 1. I V - " - - -- . the-futur- 1 was-brou- ght ;:'"''' Court-NWl4rl8- 82r , , -- brow-beate- d . si : - |