Show A POWERFUL AND COS VIM CING ARGUMENT WE present to our readers today to day the argument in full made by franklin S richards before the supreme court of toe the united states in the case of lorenzo snow it needs no eulogy of ours it will speak for itself to those who read it As a close and conclusive argument it cannot be impeached coupled with the address of george ticknor curtis which we have already given to the public it presents an array of facts and legal principles which are thoroughly convincing and could not have failed to obtain a reversal of the rulings of the lower courts it if the higher court had bad not taken advantage of the question of its own jurisdiction which did not figure in the controversy mr richards opens his argument by showing the insufficiency of the evidence against apostle snow the body of the of ferice was absent it was not shown that the defendant had lived or cohabited with more than one woman there was no cohabitation with more than one eitner either in fact or in law then the same evidente evidence was waft adduced to convict the defendant of three separate of fences this he be proves is contrary to well settled rules A man cannot be lawfully convicted of one offence offense by showing allowing that ke he committed another the difference of the bearing of the sexual intercourse question in the cannon case and upon me snow cases is pointed out and the error of the lower court in applying a it to the latter is demonstrates demonstrated the errors wherein the court gave improper instructions to the jury and withheld others that were requested by the defence are ably handled among them were the nonsensical notions that unlawful cohabitation could be assumed when a man neither occupied the same bed slept in the same room or dwelt under the same roof with the women named in the tae indictment or either of them and that the offence offense is complete when a man merely associates with two or more women as wives the right of a defendant is maintained thou though 11 living with oae wife to lawfully lawfully visit another and her children at reasonable times and for lawful purposes and it is shown that to claim and introduce more than one woman as wives does not constitute a criminal offense off ease the assertion by the lower court that 64 the edmunds law says the relationship previously existing between po must cease py is refused and proven to be dit conflict with the law and the ruling of the U S supreme me court ir ia the murphy case it is also shown that a polygamous defendant is not required by law to give public notice of any kind that he is abstaining from cohabiting with more than one woman the refusal of the lower court to give instructions covering these points is vigorously treated in mr richards argument the segregation business by which the lesser offense under the edmunds law is made to bear far severer penalties than shan the greater is effectually disposed of so far as a legal argument can knock an error into un collectable fragments it is left without a particle bicle of support in law or precedent the nonsense involved in constructive cohabitation as well as its injustice notice is ia ably exhibited and the outrage of convicting a man of cohabiting with a woman when there is no proof that he had even evell seen hor durine duclair the time mentioned in the indictment Is i thoroughly exposed the defense of his people against the imputation of immorality ind and the explanation of their adoption of plural marriage on religious principles apart from motives of lustford lust form an important part of mr richards eloquent plea for the maintenance of constitutional rights and the claims of mormon morality and were presented in a manner that iut was original g n a to the court of last resort beor several e r a 1 0 ot t the judges learned things that had bad never come to their knowledge before and the interest they displayed and ana the questions they propounded showed that although these important questions had bad been involved in cases before the court they had not become properly acquainted with the subject af after ter the explanations given by mr richards they cannot in future plead ignorance on those points we teel feel assured that all who read this able argument will be satisfied with the labo labors rs of the attorney for the people before the court which has refused to give us justice Therewa there was suo no failure on his bis part but all that could be done was accomplished and the presentation presentation of the mormon side of t these questions before the country will be sure to bring aboud good ri results in the dissemination of the truth and the correction of error we advise all who wish to be posted on the legal leeal aspects of the mormon question to read the whole of the argument published today to day which will stand as evidence of the justice of our causland cau cause seand and of the talent and fidelity of our able mormon attorney I 1 |