Show PUTTING rutting AWAY 11 THE GRAND JURY ASKS A QUESTION powers rowers answers BUT FAILS TO ENLIGHTEN THEM the grand jury of the first district court after an absence of several days appeared before judge powers yesterday morning and reported that they had found no indictments but wished some instructions whereupon hereupon w according to the ogden herald they presented an address which read as follows OGDEN utah dec 23 1883 1885 to the honorable 0 jr Ilot powers cers cens judge of odthe the first district court the grand jury most respectfully ask to be instructed on the following point assuming that the tile edmunds edmounds law taw contemplates the putting away by the husband of one or more of his pol poi polygamous wives in order that he ny may n live five within the requirements of t said J law v is it necessary that the act should be done publicly and if so what would constitute reasonable publicity I 1 very respectfully J W mcnutt foreman following is the reply of his honor gei gel gentlemen of odthe the grand jury the query you put to the court is substantially the same as was asked the supreme court of the united states by the attorney for tor the defendant in the case ot of the united states vs ancus aneus M cannon which was recently decided the supreme court of the united states declined to answer the question declined to state how a man who bad had amous wives could live olg and live wit within in the law but said he must not live in a way that would cause the outside public to believe from his actions andi andl conduct that be he was living or associating with the women as his wives As to whether or gottlic not the act of putting away be done publicly I 1 think it hardly necessary to answer for tor if a man puts away his wives ceases to live with them or associate with them thein in a manner that causes me tae public to believe that he is not living them as wives whether it is done publicly the putting punting away or whether hether it Is done privately makes malkes no difference in other words it would make DO no difference as to a mans guilt if he should from front the housetops house tops declare that he had put away his plural wives but should continue by his acts should continue by his conduct to cause the public generally to believe that he was living with the women as a husband lives with his wives the whole intent and matter of the edmunds law is to do away with the evil example of living in polygamous marriage the exam example that is set before the public and whenever a man roan by holding out women as wives b by associating with them as a husban husband aSso associates clates with his wives by conducting himself toward them as a husband conducts himself toward his wife he his guilty under the law so the manner of putting utting away has but little to do with at it it is athe the conduct it is ift the outward appearance it is C continuing to a socrate or live as husband and wife vifa il it is Js causing the public lic ilc to believe that these parties are so bufore living upon that act of course before you can find sli sif an indictment you should be satisfied from the evidence that the facts are such as would caust cause a conviction by a trial jury and be satisfied aa abi I 1 say from the facts that the conduct of the man is a public reproach in other words that it causes ane public to believe he be is associating socia ting with women as a husband associates with his bis wife the mere act of putting away wives is of no materiality terla teria lity the mere act of separation is of no materiality unless guidess it be followed up by separation the mere chan change gei gel or change of does dot oot make an excuse A man may in a very hublit manner in church or in a public noting nc ting or at any public place with his wives drawn about him film declare he had bad dut rut them thein all away except his lawful wife might place them thein in different houses and anti still be might by his outside conduct be to all intents and purposes livi living and associating with them as a husban husband ng lives and associates with his bis wives lie must roust so live that lle lie ie will not cause the outside world to believe lie he is living with them as wives or holding them out as wives I 1 had occasion to remark in the case of the united states vs A al musser I 1 hat that a husband who had been divorced from his wife wire could not be expected to continue wifely relations with her and I 1 still he ral ht continue friendly relations and while possible he would bo be compelled to support her and her children I 1 still he could act no longer toward I 1 her as his wife so since the tile passage of this edmunds law where the tile gage rage fact of polygamous cohabitation has appeared a man cannot longer cohabit that is hold out one associate with or live as a husband with the women to whom ile he has been previously married |