Show INTE interminable complications tim THE enforcement of the edmunds act illustrates a truism that is constantly verified in human affairs one false step unless it be retraced involves the tak taking in of several others to make an appearance of ot justification those advances success successively ivey ivOy make it needful to enter still further farther into the devious ways of deceit until the schemer is enveloped in a maze amaze of crookedness tae the first false step was the passage of the act the next its endorsement by the supreme these two involving the burlesque on jurls juris jurisprudence pruden ce that has been enacted in the rocky mountain reelon region of late one of the chief questions connected with the application of the act has been a definition of conduct on the part of a man having more wives than one th that atwould would be in 0 harmony with it the tig ilg judicial adjudication idea of the third district court is conspicuous for absurdity practically applied it appears to consist of an accused person making an agreement with the judge judg e that he will renounce his wives live lipe within the law and advise others to do the same the course of the court illustrated in several instances justines the conclusion that it esteel esteemed ed this modus operandi ope randt randl as harmo harmonious ous with the law while in point of fact it was merely making a promise to take that line of 01 action it was a sort of sideshow side show divorcement designate designated rd in the language of the di disi is brict attorney as a judicial adjudication ca 1 but the subject gets no less muddled as time and circumstances progress gress judge cudse powers in his opinion delivered in the ake musser case makes an effort to clear away the mist f from row roa this particular point but it is still en eloped in ili the tile fo for fop of brt bri uncertainty certainty the following extract from f rom his opinion may beta be taken kenas as his ills definition of conduct harmonious with the subtle statute that leads to such astonishing and complicated results as these which are constantly exhibited in the court of utah the defendant claims that there is no law that requires him to divorce himself from the women that Is true but the effect of the edmunds act is to r require him to treat these women su substantially b as he would be required to treat them if he had bad been divorced from them by a court of competent jurisdiction lu my opinion a man who nas heretofore contracted a polygamous marriage and has had bad children chil chii dren dien by two or moi mol more women is required as I 1 have stated to treat those women precisely as be he would be required to treat them if he had been divorced from them A man d divorced from a woman is under legal obligations to support her children he may be require lequir edby dby the decree of the court conrd to support his bis wife and to pay to her stated sums at stated intervals but with the exception of the business relation which exists between him and his former wife it is not expected th that a t h he e will have hae any further intimacy with her he may visit his children he may make directions regard to their welfare he may meet his former wife on terms of social equality but it is not expected after the decree of divorce that he will associate with his f former oriner wife that he will live under the same roof and to outward appearances live with her as a husband lives with kis his his wife the edmunds law says that there must be an end and it puts an end to the relationship pravio previously asly exist existing lu between the parties whatever it was it says that the relationship must cease 11 this is a tolerably clear statement af f how a man may treat his plural wives and children and remain in harmony with the edmunds law but the question is could he not go considerably further than uhe itie boundary thus de tined and still not be in conflict with it we are not now assuming the position that he could but we jo do contend that he could step over the powers delimitation line sr far as the adopted theory in regard to the intent and applicability of the act is concerned as constructed hy ity th ethree utah judges who area are aie a unit on that point the they all hold hoid that it was as exclusively aimed at the mormon marriage relation anc and anc was not intended to deal with sexual sins b i appose oppose then that a man and his wife are legally divorced hun case baill f furt urther herlt herit s subsequent to the ane grantin granting of the de decree cree of divorcement the coggie couple should without b being m again ain aln married in addition to ad adopting 0 eina t i the course judge powers outlines as the one they would be expected to f follow 01 low live together in the tile same bame house occupy the same bed produce and rear children what would be their beatus undoubtedly they would be guilty of sexual sin which the district attorney truly and aptly as merced the mormons cormons Mor mons conde condemn lun iun 11 it edeh such a case occurred here tile the male principal tu to the transaction would according to the thu rulings of the judge judges not be in tiie tile slightest test danger from froin tae tac operations of lne the edmunds act which is not directed a ainest against sexual sins bind then al allot of this conduct is what a man may engage in no matter what 14 is expected of nim him who has been legally divorced from his wife how ho iv would it operate if it a man cereto deport himself similarly toi ward his plural wife could he ho be made liable to the penalties of the ed law providing not claim clairn that the woman was his wife or is the conduct of a man toward a woman who stands in the relationship of a plural wife to him to be regulated by what is expected I 1 from a man toward a woman from whom he Is divorced and not what he may do with impunity so sd far as the edmunds act Is concerned it appears th atthe entire pro gramme of what a man who has been divorced may do could be carried out in the tile case of 0 the polygamist so long as he was not guilty of holdin gout rout his bis plural wife to the toe world as his wife in point of fact it would not even change the status of his hla justification if his plural wife should call him husband and in everyday every way Avay trea thim as such so that he be did not convey the idea publicly that she was his bis wife cc certainly the conduct of the inan man divorced would convey the idea that the woman was still his wife and nis conduct would continue with impunity even if in the meantime be he had married another yet he would be exempt from the pena penalties es of the edmunds act the construction judicially placed upon the edmunds u ads law is that it is not aimed at genuine crime and moral rottenness it is held 0 be bd in the mature of a blow at a community consequently it is a boil boll on the seat of jurisprudence which squirms every time it attempts to sit down upon its proposed victim |