| Show punishment FOR FOB THIS thic latest judicial definition of the term unlawful cohabitation that we have heard of was given by associate justice Jub tice henderson in pronouncing sent ericc upon mr george chandler chander at ogden the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of the indictment against him but denied the charge in the other counts the court in a very kind and considerate consider ute manner questioned the defendant in regard to his intentions for the future this thid led to an interrogation from mr chandler as to tile the meaning of tile the term which has been construed in so many different ways judge henderson Uc replied that although there had been some difference in the way the courts had considered tile law he be thought it had now a settled meaning the supreme courton court of this uty gad and also of the united states had passed upon it and it seems now to mean that those who have entered into a polygamous relation in the past must not noc only odly abstain from cohabiting with their wives but from tho the appearance of it that they will no not set such an example hereafter att r is we frequently bear of the decision of the supreme court of the united on this still unsettled but bat important question it appears to us that it is scarcely fair to make such a reference the supreme court of the united states formally withdrew the only opinion it gave on this matter it was m the case of angus M cannon and did not reach the main question it only related to the case before the court which was that of a defendant who had lived in the same house with more wives than one and who offered to prove that intimate marital relations had ceased since the passage ox of toe the edmunds law the court did not rule that a must cease from froin the ae appear appearance ancell of cohabitation except as it might be interred inferred from what it called flaunting before the world the opportunities of IL a polygamous household the court tild iid not pass on any case in which the wives lived in separate establishments nor on nay any case in which the defendant dwelt ita one wife only and whatever the court said on the case before it was subsequently withdrawn and cannot therefore be properly cited as a judicial decision toe the supreme court of the territory has passed upon the ques tio naud judge henderson says that under the ruling of that coulta polygamist must not only cease from actual cohabitation with his wives but from the appearance of it if that is his bis understanding der standing of the construction given by that court of course he is bound to abide by it as the law until a change comes he is not to be blamed for tile the wrong or the absurdity of the ruling defendants will have to suffer the consequence of the trash in tile name of law until a rational definition is 9 given 11 alven either by competent legislation or by judicial authority judge henderson is careful to say that this definition denuit lun seems to be now the settled meaning of the law this is wise in view vie wot of the pro probability babil ty of a further change when the features of a new case appear different from others hall half a dozen or more settled meanings have been given to the law und and there is no encourage encouragement men t to other thau than that as many more mere settled meanings may be given la in the future to the conlu confusion bion of the public mind and the betrayal of victims to previous judicial errors the present construe xion lion of course stands for the time being but the nonsense erise and injustice of it must be perceptible to every sane mind to make A defendant responsible for what people may think or may gossip about him to send a man to P prison ison because at a were mere appearance w without without a proof of wrong is supremely ridiculous and that it is s without warrant of law is evident f from rom reading au I 1 abe e law the language la Is very simple it t says saya nothing about appearances it makes cohabiting with more than one woman criminal appearing to cohabit is not a crime either actual or tita statutory it the of u tiling thing but tae thing itself that is toe tile object of legislation we venture to say that so absurd a requirement was never made before since the world began by any civilized court on earth nor noi in relation to any other offense whether real or made criminal bylaw by law apply it to anything else and its folly and wrong are at once made manifest condemn a man for larceny not because it has been proved that he has stolen but from the appearance pe arance of tt it imprison a person for owson bot because there is evidence that lat he fired a building buU diug but because he is reputed to be a firebug a defendant fondant charged with murder not because anybody liss baa been killed killea or if a homicide has been committed not from proof that be did the awl awful a deed but because abbe he neighbors orb believe from appo appearances arances that he is an all assassin abere are men now serving out protracted sentences in the penitentiary ar Y edio have been deceived by the varied and contradictory renderings of courts of tile term unlawful fal cohabitation they conformed their lives to the law as previously construed by the courts and and were caught caugh tou on anew a new twist of the legal pinhook man many of them could not t have been convicted if the law had been followed toll owed as it stands oa the statute book instead of the noD nonsensical strained and unjust interpretations manufactured by courts for the severs severa occasions occasion si if a who has honestly tried to live by the law is required as a condition of liberty to promise to live so that no one can say he shows any appearance of violating its provisions it is not likely that honest men will pledge themselves as desired and spy any requirement of the kind under the circumstances existing is not only a burlesque on law but is ia an outrage on every individual so placed in jeopardy we know of nothing that is so much calculated to bring judicial authority into disrespect and derision as the multifarious rulings upon tile the third section of the edmunds act |
