Show PETERSONS PROXY MARRIAGE 31 A R 13 1 A G E V xv publish today to day judge hunters c 0 to tc the jury in the peterson Pc terson case lati iati larl lavi ulars of which have already app ir r A din in the NE NEWS ws we think that 1 1 j rs generally will concede the a ness iness ine ss of the propositions and con ci is thereon therlon laid down with two ix s lions the first of these excel ions lons is the statement that congress has exclusive jurisdiction over ove r t his this territory to legislate against bigamy tile the other is the con conlu lusion fusion sion siou that a conviction for lor bigamy or polygamy is unnecessary as proof in a trial for illegal voting when the basis of the thu charge is that the defendant is a blaic bigamist g 1 or polygamist we IV 6 do not concede the point poin t tha congress has exclusive jurisdiction over any organized territory of tile the union for each territory possesses the right we will not stop to dispute as to whether it is inherent or bestowed to legislate for itself and is endowed with power over all rl rightful subjects of legislation congress has exclusive ve jurisdiction for all purposes whatever over the district ot columbia and no other part of the country e except acl pt similar places owned entirely by the united states congress has no right to legislate ou on the marriage al arriage question tion at all not a line can be lound in tile the constitution which authorizes it and it is only by changing the word territory doetzl arito which willen from tiie tile context un undoubtedly y means land into territories ri which the constitution never contemplated that the power of congress to legislate directly for our incipient commonwealth can be construed to the smallest extent the question as to tile the necessity of a conviction for bigamy or poly polygamy ganly gaulY lefore definite proof can be that a defendant in a case of this kin kind d was disqualified to vote when tile the alleged offense offence was committed was clearly argued and sustained in the affirmative by judge harkness the response of tile the assistant prosecuting attorney that this would render the edmunds law inoperative is no reason at all neither the court nor the jury were responsible for the failure or incompetence of a poorly frain framed ea law wh which eli cli ell the whole country has been for months deriding as a failure but we do not wish to dwell on these points the principal question arising 1 in a the case is the nature of tile the mag maj marriage between the defendant and caroline johnson it was not denied that lie he was previously married and that ills his first wite wile w was as living livina neither that he voted at the delegate delegat election if then a bona fide contract of marriage marriage was e entered into between him and caroline johnson he was under the edmunds law disqualified as a voter and consequently liable to prosecution f for or illegal voting but it was shown in the trial that tile tiie defendant was not married to caroline johnson as judge hunter defines a marriage ile he did not enter into a contract in which the relation of husband and wife in in this life was undertaken indeed he did not contract with her the relation of husband and wife at all either for this life or the life to come lie he simply stood for the ceremony and that alone as proxy for or her deceased husband lie he committed no offense against any enactment of congress or any other lawmaking law making power valid or invalid therefore on the judges showing the defendant was not guilty of illegal voting for he had bad bal bai but one wife and was not disqualified from exercising excising elle elie the elective franchise but at the e jury disagreed standing eight for acquittal and four lor conviction it is quite likely that tub four who for conviction did not understand the marriage doctrine explained by tile the witnesses and argued by the lawyers betit but it is very plain and clear to the latter day saints the doctrine ot of eternal marriage by which a man and anci woman can call be sealed seated to together ether for time and all eternity is one N of the most important lill lili 1111 parts of our faith connected with it is the doctrine of plural raar marriage and also the doctrine of vicarious administrations baptism baptista forthe for fon the dead is a part of this on tile the same principle that a person can be baptized for a dead relative he can under certain regul regulations actions stand as proxy for him hill in marriage it is the right of the tiie firstborn first bora born son if there be such of the deceased man mail for whom the vicarious marriage is performed to stand in the place of the father for the ceremony only if there is no son or the son is t too 00 young tile the proxy aroxy may be a friend but that friend in lil this case merely stands for that occasion only to represent the dead person lie he undertakes der takes no obligation of marri marriage ae whatever with the living woman either elther for or this life or tile the life to come therefore he is not married to her himself lie he stands in the same relation to her as a nobleman in a european monarchy sent by ills his sovereign to stand as proxy y fora for a prince in a marriage with the daughter of a royal house in some other coun country occupies to the lady at the altar instances ot of which might inight be cited from history the proxy is not the husband of the lady in any ally sense whatever andrew peterson in representing the deceased mail mall johnson in the solemnization of a marriage for et eternity ernly cont contracted hete mete no marriage marrna marnna e for himself himsel with the w widow d ow and was under no obligation or promise r amise to live with her provide for el her er or do anything thin further than that ceremony only if li he ahad had undertaken to do so with no solemnization of marriage other than that proxy ceremony his intercourse aroxy won would have been adul adultery the highest adultery teri crime known to our C church lurch except murder 1 it is clear then that andrew peter son did not marry caroline johnsona Johns onas S judge hunter defined marriage and further that as the judge ruled the reilo religious lous ious ceremony in which reacted hia hda had no element of a civil marr age 1 l 1 I 1 and therb therefore fore as courts do not enforce or take jurisdiction in matters which involve only religious belief and do not affect the condition or property odthe of the dir din parties artles arties while living the defendant did not violate the edmunds law and coll coji consequently was not as alleged bilty of illegal voting lie ile could not be convicted except by a packed jury and by the force of religious prejudice there are other marriages that might be explained which are of a different nature to that we have described but they cut no figure in this case A and nd it must be remembered that the question whether the jury believed or not in marriage for eternity or considered it as foolish asive as we regard the godfather god father I 1 and god pod godmother mother proxy system of catholicism etc i had nothing properly to do with the verdict the facts brought out show it to have been a spite case and if the pr promoters 0 ot it think the they y can make such a transparently thin persecution stick they will tind nind that they have b but ut their trouble for their pains andrew peterson had just as much right to vote as any jury juryman inan who sat on his case or lawyer who prosecuted or the judge who sat oil on the judicial benchland ben chand who we consider suin summed ined up the case impartially |