Show CASE OF ANGUS 11 CANNON DECISION oy OF THE SUPREME COURT OF or THE UNITED STATES 1 I 1 december 1885 mr justice blatchford deliver dellver deliverer eq the opinion of the court anus angus M cannon was indicted by a erand grand ana jury in the district court of the third hird judicial district in laud land ifor for the territory tory tony of utah in february 1885 for a violation of section 3 of the act of congress approved march anace to amend section three hundred and fifty two of the revised statutes of the united states in reference to bigamy bigam and fo for other rother purposes 22 stat at ai section I 1 lof lot of the act amends section of the revised statutes which was a reenact re enact ment of section 1 of the act of july 1862 ch 12 stat goi gol here follow the act of 1862 and the act of the he indictment against cannon was as follows the grand jury of the united states of america within and for the district aforesaid in the terri tor tory tors aforesaid being duly duty empanelled empanel led and sworn on their oaths do find and present that angus INI lyl cannon late of said district in the territory aforesaid to wit on the first day of june in the year of our lord one thou thousand sana eight hundred and eighty two and on divers other days and continuously between the said sald first day of neAD juneac Ju and the first day of february A D 1885 at the county of salt lake and territory of utah did unlawfully cohabit with more than one woman to bitone amanda cannon and one clara 0 mason sometimes known as clara C cannon against the form of the statute of the said united states in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the same the defendant pleaded not guilty and the case ease was tried in A april r il 1885 resulting in a verdict of gustt guilty y and a judgment imposing a fine nine of im in the penitentiary for six months and further imprisonment till the payment of the fine atter after the jury was paneled em and sworn and the prosecution had tad called a witness ef the e defendant objected to the giving of any evidence under the indictment on the ground that the indictment was defective and did not charge any criminal offense nor any offense under the statutes of the tile united states nor the offense deseri desert described bed in the tha statute either in the statutory words or equivalent words and especially did not show that the person charge charged yd was a male person and was insufficient to warrant a verdict or support a judgment of conviction the court ov overruled the tho objection and the defendant excepted excited the following proceedings ce then took place as shown by the bill of exceptions here Is inserted the evidence I 1 in the case case ease which has already been published in the DESERET NEWS defendants counsel then made the tho following offer of proofs ave we offer to prove by this and other witnesses to oe be called that amanda cannon was married to the defendant before the marriage with this witness that prior to the passage of the ed law he had alternately occupied the sleeping room and bed of each that each with mth her family pied and still occupies separate aparto apartments enis including separate dining rooms and kitchens that after the edmunds law had passed assed both houses of congress and before before its approval by the presidents president the defendant announced to witness amanda and their families that he did not intend to violate that law but should live within it so long as it should remain a law and at the same time assigned his reasons lor for torso forso so doing doingo and thereafter and during in the times alleged in the indictment be did not occupy the th rooms or wr bed of or have any sexual intercourse with the witness and to this extent by mutual agreement separated from the witness that during all the time mentioned in the indictment the two families have taken their meals in their respective dining rooms that defendant has taken his meals meala with the witness and her family in her dining room two or ahr three ee days daya each week has pro provided ed for the support of the witness and her family distinct from other family expenses and allowed them to occupy separate apartments in the same house occupied by him and amanda and this is the ext extent ent of his relations with the witness and also that the defendant was financil financially a lly ily unable to provide a separate house for witness and her family also that the witness and arid her family and amanda i ancher and her family are dependent anthe on the defendant for their support to this offer and ach each paragraph thereof the i prosecution objected and the objection was sustained by the court and tiie the defendant excepted to the ruling the foregoing was war all the evidence given in the case the court instructed the jury as follows the indictment in this case charges ithak the thede de fen sen dand on the thirst day of june in the year i of our lord 1882 1883 and on divers other days continuously b between e said first dal dai day dax of june 1882 1883 and the first day of fe february auary 1885 did unlawfully cohabit with more than one woman to wit one amanda cannon and one clara C mason alason some sometimes times known as clara C cannon if you believe from the evidence gentlemen of the I 1 jarv any ary beyond a reasonable reason aole doubt that the defendant ant aut lived in the same house with amanda cannon and clara C cannon the tho women named in the indictment and ate at their thel respective tables one third of ill lit his s time or eliere about sand and that he held them out oat to the world by his bis language or his conduct or by both baths s his bis wives you should find him guilty it is not necessary that the tile evidence should show that the defendant and these women or either of them occupied the same bed or slept in the same room neither is it necessary that the evidence should show that within the tile time mentioned lie he had sexual intercourse with either of them I 1 will state the law presumes ane defendant innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses the weight of the thu evidence and wid 0 of f the facts and it if you find the defendant guilty you will say in your verdict we the jury lind und the defend defendant allt alit guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment and isyou if you nind find him not guilty you ou will say wc we the jury find the defendant not nut guilty no so further or other instructions werl were pre given to the jury the defendant excepted to ibe the parts of the instructions which are enclosed in brackets ho he also submitted the following prayers for instructions each of which was separately refused followed by a separate exception the requests of counsel for defendant 1 to to 24 which wele were refused by the court appeared in the N NEW r report of the trial triai from the judgment the tho defendant appealed to the supreme court of th the territory which affirmed it and he has brought the case to this ibis court by a writ of error the principal question argued at the bar was the proper construction of section 3 of the act of 1883 1882 that thai question depends on the inea InCa meaning weaning of qt the word cohabit in the thu section the meaning contended for ly by the d defendant fen sen dantis is indicated by ill lit his 3 offer t TV r j to show by clara 01 cannon non access and facts to rebut the presumption ol 01 sexual inter intercourse cours e with her and the actual absence of buch huch intercourse and by the request for instructions Ins trupti ons t to 0 the jury which are based on the view yiew that the word cohabits I 1 necessarily includes the idea of having sexual in ili ter course but we are of the opinion that this is not the proper Interpret interpretation 4 of the statute and aud that the court ourt properly charged thea the jory jury ury ary that the defendant tel fel was to be found guilty if i pe lived in the bame same house with the two women and ate at their respective tables one third of his time or thene thereabouts and held them out to the world ti by his language or conductor conduce or bathas both as his Is wives and aud ohl it was wat riot not necessary it should be shown that be and the two women or either of them occupied the same bed or slept in the thy se room or that he had sexual intercourse t ter er with either of them this interpretation is deducible from the language of the statute throughout it refers wholly fo to tho ue le uel del tween men and women founded on tho the existence of actual marriages or on ott the holding out of their existence section 1 makes it an offense for fora a man or a woman with a living wife or husband to marry another and calls such offense polygamy section 3 slug slum singles oles oies out the man and makes it a misdemeanor for him to cohabit with more than one woman section 4 provides that counts for any or of all of the offenses off rinses named iq ir i sections 1 and 3 inay be joined in th the same information or indictment ghis this certainly has no tendency to show that the cohabitation referred lo 10 is one on outi t side of a marital relation ion iod actual oros so in section 5 bigamy polygamy and unlawful cohabitation are classed together and idis itis it Is provided that in any prosecution for any one of such offenses it shau shale be cause of challenge to a juror that he has been living in the tab practice of hl hig amy polygamy or unlawful coball j tion with more th than allone one woman or ha i been guilty of in an offutt e i by the preceding sections or that hr ba believes it to be right fora man to hav nave j moreth more than anone one living and j wife at the same time or to live in bho bhe practice of cohabiting with more than tharl one woman it is the practice of un I 1 lawful cohabitation with more than one woman that is aligned at a cohabitation classed with polygamy and hav ing its outward semblance it Is not on the one hand meretricious tal intercourse with more moie tha th nonet anione woman general legislation as to lewil leiva practices is left to afie the thu territorial rov ov ern eminent ment nor on ibe other hand band does docs the statute pry into the intimacies cies cles of the marriage relation but I 1 it t seeks seeka not oell only to punish b bigamy amy and polygamy v W when en direct 1 proof roof of the exist enist on en 20 e of those relations can be made but to prevent a moan roan from flaunting in the face of the world the ostentation and opportunities of a bigamous hhuse hold I 1 with all appearance of the continuance of the relations which existed the act i was passed and without refer epee epoe to what may occur in the privacy of tho those i relations igns compacts Compact i for hemual uon sal intercourse easily made marle and us a v i eilly illy nily broken when the pi lor tor relations continue to exist with tho iho hu occupation 1 of the bame house ind iud talk tait ubie and the keeping up of the thu ame tame t family fagely unity is not a lawful substitute sul stitt ite for i i the family abich aleco al gue que the statute tolerates in liet lna ina lu luanner auner uner bigamy polygamy and aut 0 coi col o habitation are clawed classed together in section 6 and 8 of tiie the act aut 6 authorizes the president to crant braul uin nesty to persons guity ot of bi bigamy rainy gainy polygamy or unlawful cohabitation before the passage of the act aay any 3 unlawful cohabitation under phu fhe law laws the united states before that time i only have been osten ostensibly marial cohabitation for the only statute in on the subject was wad section of 0 the ete Ele statutes III ill regard to bigamy section 8 excludes irom from voting every bi bigamist gamt or p person erson co labi tins tinz with more than one woman and every woman cohabiting with any polygamist bigamist or person co ha hariting habiting with more than one woman this rols section was considered by this court in murphy v Ba bainses hamsey insey U A 15 where mr justice matthews speaking for the court in construing ape te words bigamist abil abd 6 adist jn ja phat that hat section sas says sass p 4 41 in pur opinion any man is a poly poleg aigist or bigamist in the tho sense of this Ws is chiou af the act who having previously marni marri edone eife still ilya living 1199 and baving having another at the he time when he presen presents tg himself to claim registration as a voter still maint paint maintains ains that relation rela reia tiou lou to a plurality plurality of wives although from t the 6 date ot the passage of tiie tile act of 22 jissi ISS until the day tc oe offers offer to register aud and ud vote he lie may inay 14 in fact faut bave have cohabited yita vita spore ore tb thau oue oae Wit without hokit regard to the ihl question at the time ilijic he entered into such relation awas it was a prohibited and punishable offen e or whether by reason oe of lapse of time since its commission a prosecution for it may not be bo barred I 1 if he still maintains the relation he I 1 id a bl bigamist ai because that is the status which mhd nixed fixed babit habit and practice of bf 14 his livi levim hig fig rias fins established he hv has a plurality ot of wives more inor ethan than on one oue woman whom hr lit recognizes asa as wife wite I 1 of whose children he is S the acknowledged lather father and whon with their children be he mai mal italis as a family jamily ol 01 which he is the had heat and this status as to several wives mav may wll wil continue to exist as a practical il relation loil although for fora a period lie he may not in fact tact cohabit wi tilmore more th than tirone one lort hatli hatti quite consistent with the constant recognition ot the aade same relation t man wan many y accompanied with to renew cohabitation with one oile or addre odthe others when it mav may be bd convenient it is not there thene therefore fore because the percil has committed tn th odense of bigamy or poly Voly ramy iram at some line iffie in n violation of some boine existing statute at ute alid and as 0 ah addi stil giri t cpr 10 its commiss commission iod lod that hefe heji ji disfranchised franchised dis bythe by the altol act ot congress of march nor bacin because ae he is as deuced defined and punts punished ed by y t the e terms of that act but tat tiered a bigamous u br polygamous bus relation oy by a mariag e ith a second or third wife while iohd first was living be he still maintains it and has not hot dissolved if it although for foe the thi time b eing he restricts actual cohabitation to butoi but one ode lt lie he might in tact fact abstain from actual cohabitation with all and be still as muchas much as ever a bigamist or a polygamist lie cali cad only cease to be suca when he has finally fully div dip dissolved solved in somo some pt iii lil auner anner which weare not called op to aint paint I 1 out the very relation pt pi husband litis band to several constitutes lue lne tue forbidden status ho lie has previously assumed tation atlon ia 13 but one of the man many manx to the marriage relation it it pilot s noi not es vs it one moan roan where where tuch ruch a abslem as siem slem te has bas beear tolu tole tolerated rated a au 4 practiced ac ed MAY mas have several ments moen roen tit each of which may kiy be the home of a separate parate he family faintly none roone of which h he e mav may dwer dwelt tn in or even visit ihu yn an express tion betwee it and poleg on th the e oil oli aa j and cohabit with aith moru mure than one woman on t 11 te other Wo whereas reas jf cohabitation will mila evera I 1 wives was essential epsen lal jal to io the description of those wha are bigamists biga mists or OP thosa worda in the would superfluous anil antl amlun nn a necessary 14 it follows that apy any peron piron person having beveral vivek is a bigamist |