Show THE difference OUT of two thirds of a column of balderdash pettifog pettifogging ino ing and abuse abigie in this thid mornings 11 tribune we wg efti extract ct one question guestion which Is decent relevant to the subject and worthy of a reply jt in n reference to the snow showcase case I 1 1 I we lwe beg be to asu ask the NEWS what difference 11 ference there was hisaw showing sho wing wins between hl bd and that tuat of angus cannon i the di difference IS 19 this I 1 in the cannon do n case it was shown that the defendant had lived in the same house with two women whom he acknowledged were hid bid wives lie he ont oft tottered ered ened to prove that cohabitation in IIA its generally accepted sense had bad c ceased e ase d with the passage of the edmunds act rhe the court ruled that living with and holding out two or lnore more women as wives constituted unlawful cohabitation and that sexual intercourse need not be proved nor disproved the tho supreme court of the united states tates affirmed thad that ruling taking webster and civil jurisprudence for authorities and I 1 ignoring the established meaning of tb the tho term in criminal juris jurls jurisprudence pr cd e although to justices miller and meld hield this was the firsa first time such an interpretation was ever riven given to the tile term ln in criminate crimi nai nat law that definition now noy stands as the legal mear meat meaning ilni lini of unlawful c cohabitation P inthe in the snow koiv case proven by the prosecutions own witnesses that the delen aelen defendant dant had hop hot no lived d with two or more women either in the same house or in separate houses houps but nat mat y had bad only aved ived with one in a house that had no connection with the houses in his other wives resided and further thau that during the time mentioned in the indictment he be had not visited them or either of them except for a very few minu minutes tes to Inqui inquire rip after the health of children or transact ai me lin ancial financial business ana ano that in the day time the evidence was positive tuat be he had not lived with them as a husband lives with a wife but the court ruled that it was wag not ne necessary in order to convict to show that the defendant had bad lived under the same roof with these women or either elther of them noty it if the tribune T cannot see the difference between these two cases it must mug be either elther very dense or wilf wilfully ully blind the difference is essential the of last list resor resort tins tIMS has bas ruled titled that to constitute the offense of unlawful at cohabitation a it man must live with as weil well as hold out as wives wises two armore or more women judge judsie powers hag has ruled that a man Is guilty of that offense if he holds out more than one woman as wives if be he does nod not live with them at aila ally mr cannon lived with two tivo women in to tae same house mr aft snow only lived with ode woman it alvin living with two or more women as wives I 1 is s ti the essential Ingred ingredient lent of the offense how eief can a man be guilty who only lives ilves with one woman as acif a wife e the tribune adds the io to the question we have answered t 1 both knowd be neither had given any public notice that be had dissolved nis polygamous relations both hel belf dut out to libe jibe world that they apte aud and taught their nocks n to live up to their religion but both declared that la in point ot ladt tact they had not violated ane edmund lavy betanna Bu tAnna went to une pen and the be bp preme court affirmed the rufin rulin ruling which ent tent hiu hin there when we cite ilat clat anat tact the NEWS says fudge zoat s the le legal legai talent 01 th s cries fudge to the supreme court of the phe be united states still st III lii ahe he chur survives 11 the troung triune here c cames thes dow t ta 9 its trual level it lt was never buver to quote correctly te the thu argument of an adversary pr to state his bit position fairly we did not say eidd fidd fudge fiddes es to the abe supreme court ot the united states but io to itle itie nans nonsense nse ngo of the tribune s and aud nd we did ngo say it to td ady aay fact trtat the tribune cited here nere Is what we baid bald aid said the tue tribune asks had hadi any mormon heard beard had given up those relations it does dues bot not matter whether an any alermo mormon a or any one else eise has bay heard uny any about it 11 isa Is a manito manilo man mau i to be tried for what somebody had has nas nat heard or has nol not heard fudge j what is aftel therein in this thia about the su 4 preme curd curr or about any fact cited by the Tn bilile it 19 isa because that paper falsifies botn botti facts aud arguments chat hat it so of often telf tell places itself beneath contempt but to the point in dispute irmay it may be ke true that persons are known to be polygamists that they teach polygamy as a religious doctrine Ide trine trind that they hol hoi bold hold out to the world more than one woman as wives faid and yet they may be in fact tact not guilty gaiety bt bf violating the edmunds law liw for that law donnot do does enot not forbid men ta acknowledge their wives nor punish them tilam axce except t by for tor being bong liftee ird idd the status of polygamy nor for tor preaching teaching or the doctrine enich th they belleve believe and practice A man may be ey a dud not subject tb prosecution udder the edmunda edmundd law if it he lie has not married a plural wife eor dor or lived with more than one ona woman ih in the arriage marriage Tn relation since the passage of that law and pretense any to the contrary is so much nonsense fitly met with tue expressive word fudge I 1 it the tribune 71 would use a little more reason and a littleness little jess sen tation with some decent iau Jau language guage instead of ol such torrents of abuse it would got not be so sa much of delon deion degradation for respectable you jou journals t to 01 notice its ef eff fusions |