Show AN OUTRAGE AGAINST LEGAL WIVES more a federal court in I 1 utah has shown itself capable of so inter breting and applying the law as to give eive it the force and effect of new legislation practically it is the exercise of legislative functions by the judicial power contrary to usage the precedents of centuries and the general understanding der standing of the spirit and meaning of both statutory ana common law in relation to the incompetency of husbands has bands and wives to testify against leach ach other except by mutual consent in a criminal action judge zane zane on saturday permitted the ahli legal outrage perpetrated t by DI district brict attorney dickson in r requiring equi ring a legal wife to give evidence for or the prosecution in a base case against her er husband mrs langton was compell edito answer the questions of the public prosecutor intended to make her husband appear guilty of unlawful lal cohabitation the replies were not such as were anticipated and they failed to establish anything ny ng against the accused use who was ac acquitted ait because of the total lack of evidence v ence against him it was not proven roven that he had committed any unlawful adf al act or even that he had a plural wife the gossip of chattering and unreliable persons who tried to make out a case to injure are him was all that the prosecution could offer against isaac langton who has been put to untold trouble and expense because the prosecuting attorney is so ready to catch up tip any silly story or piece of petty spite which a gentile may mav have against a A mormon lormon whose guilt is assumed as soon as he be is accused a and nd who receives the damage instead of the benefit of a doubt it seems that the delay in the passage of the edmunds bill making it laurl lawful to compel the legal wife to testify in certain cases against her husband be came so irritating to the prosecuting officers here that they could not wale wait any longer so they concluded to make the local law answer their purpose the ruling of judge zane 0 on U this point will be found in another column it burnson turns on that clause in the statute he quotes from which makes an exception to the rule rale excluding the testimony of has husbands bands and wives against each other in a civil action or proceeding by one against the other or proceeding for for a crime committed by one against the other the object of this exception Is clear it is to make the wife a competent compe teni witness when her person is assaulted or she receives bodily injury from her husband it is not to place her un an willi willingly in a position to criminate her husband or to make her appear against him in a charge of crime against the public the very object of the statute making the husband and wife incompetent witnesses against each ot heris berts to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate this Is IP so stated in the law the offense of unlawful al cohabitation is one that has been created for a special purpose according to the construction ot of the courts it relates to plural marriages it is the holding heding out and living with more than one woman as wives it is said to be a crime against society but that it is not a crime committed by the husband against the wife in the class of cases tor which the law was enacted is evident from the fact that the wile wie has entered into the relationship of marriage with her husband under institutions that provide for plural marriages she is a u consenting party to the arrangement her very marriage is contracted with the understanding that he may establish marital relations with others when a man cohabits with another woman by consent of the wife when she does not regard it as any crime against her when she has no complaint to make how can his alleged offense against society be con getrued into a crime committed against the wife the meaning of the statute quoted by judge zane is definitely determined in the laws baws of 1878 see sec except with the consent of both or in cases of criminal violence upon one by the other neither husband nor wife are competent witnesses for or against each other in a criminal action or preceding pro ceding to which oue one or both are parties the low law of 1881 1884 from which judge zane quotes does not repeal this section they both stand together they are to be construed together they are to be viewed in paria materia the crime committed by one against the other which a allows the testimony of one against the ot other heris is the crime of personal violence it is so defined lu in the he law these statutes taken together are in accordance with good common sense with the principles of common law with the es hed doctrine in regard to the public policy of rendering I 1 incompetent the testimony of husband and wife lor for or against each other and with rulings ot of the Sup ruine court of the united states white while the persons of the husband and wife are am protected from violence by these laws taken together the essential unit unity of ane marital status is not broken nor the sanctity tit of matrimonial confidence invaded but in the rendering ot of the later law to le the exclusion and ignoring of the other equally ily valid law the general principles which forbid the arraying of the wife against the husband ausband are violated cast down to the ground and stamped upon the great principle upon which the exemption of husband and wife as witnesses against each other is founded is the legal theory that they are ONE and as no defendant can be e hil compelled to tote ie a witness against himself the wife whose legal identity ideality is merged into that of the husband cannot be made to appear against mm him of whom she is a part bouvier vol 11 page pae 11 says the reason for excluding them from giving evidence either for or a against each other is founded partly on their identity of interest partly on a principle of public policy which deems it necessary to guad the security and confidence of private life even at the risk of an occasional failure of justice jub tice i they cannot be witnesses fur each other because their interests are absolutely the same they are not witnesses against each other because it is against the policy ot of marriage greenleaf in his great work on the law of evidence vol I 1 page 2 86 says communications between husband and wife belong also to the class of communications aud and are the therefore protected independently of the ground of interest and iden identity tit which precludes the parties f from row testifying for or against each other the happiness hap of the married state requires quires that there should be the most unlimited confidence between husband and wife and this confidence the law secures by providing that it shall be kept tor for ever inviolate that nothing shall be extracted from the bosom of the wife which was confided there by the husband L that thae are some exceptions exception 11 to this is admitted and they are provided for in the utah sta statutes tates in relation to them greenleaf says further page to this general rule excluding the husband and wife as witnesses there are some elc exceptions options ept ions which are allowed from the necessity of the case partly for the protection protect ioa of the wife in ner life and liberty and partly for the sake of pub public ill c justice but tue lue exception which calls tor for the security I 1 ii described to mean not a general necessity as where no other witness e can an be hepe had d but a particular necessity as w where f for 0 r instance the wife would woula othe otherwise w toe b be e exposed without reined to personal ida injury ury 1 I 1 I 1 in the references to support this principle it is shown that tile the of such evidence is only incase of personal injuries committed by the husband or wife against each other and it is said that mr justice holroyd a neld eld that even in such cases tile me W could only be admitted to prove fa facto cab which could not be proved by othea witnesses 11 in the casse case of the stati vs welch quoted by greenleaf it was wab held that on the trial of a aiu etian anfor for the crimp crime of adultery the huband hulun ct ot ane womac with whom the ariam was allaert tu to nave been COMMIN tl b awu etl hald not to be admissible as ah a witness for the prosecution as his hie testimony would so 0 directly to charge the rique crique upon his wife he refers to another castin point which also shows clearly that th crime or wrong committed by the bus band against the wife to deimit hei testimony must be one of I 1 injury nj a ry to hei person and not such an injury as that inferred by judge zane the wife is not A co ip apt ut at witness against the bust I 1 ll 11 i i u indictment against him R for e z p r i acion d in of perjury to wrong hex her in n b I 1 uricial proceeding ce people vs carpenter 9 barb but bat we will come now to the ruling of the highest court in the land on ills this try cery important question in the case of stein vs bowman in error to the district court of the united states lor the clue eastern district of louisiana the court reversed the decision of the court below and one of the chief errors re was the admission of evidence by the wife against ane husband the cour court ruled that it is a general rule that neither a husband nor nar a wife can he a witness nor or against the other this thib rule is subject to some exceptions as where the husband commits an off anse against the person of the wife in the case of the king vs ch Clivi I 1 er ad term the tar court helg taij taia wife should not be called in guy auy case to give evidence even tending to criminate her husband it is sound doctrine that trust and confidence between man and wife shall not oe ne betrayed 46 it is however admitted in all the cases that the aue is not competent except to in eases cases of violence her person directly to criminate cri the husband or to disclose that which she has learned from him in their conal in intercourse er course 11 and it is conceived that this principle does not merely afford protection to the husband and wife which they art are at liberty tp to invoke or not at their di when aien the question fuestion is propounded but it renders aers them incompetent to disclose facts in evidence in violation of the rule can the wife under such circumstance either voluntarily be per permitted witted or by force be compelled to state bbate facts in evidence which render infamous the character of tier her husband we think most clearly that site she cannot he be public molicy alicy and established principle tor for id it the i ule is founded upon the deepest and soundest principles of our nature principles which have grown out of those domestic relation that constitute the basis of civil society and which are essential to the enjoyment of that confidence which should subsist between those who are connected by the nearest and dearest relations of life to break down or impair the great principles which protect the sanctities of husband and wife would be to destroy the best solace of human existence we think that the court erred in overruling the objections to this witness 11 peters vol 13 pp ap IM aw we have not quoted all that the court said on this subject nor ane host of authorities referred to in the decision but have hav given copious quotations because they bear so ho squarely upon the question which this community has to meet W when lien the authorities go to show that a let lenal al wife is not permitted except in a caie of personal violence to testily husband what must be thought of proceeding edingb which compel her against her lier will as well as the protest of the defend antto give evidence lor for the purpose of con y her husband of crime barly when she has no personal grievance against him it will be seen from the citations we have made that the ruling of judge zane is not only at variance with ane laws of thet the territory on which he has professed to decide but with the principles of law and public policy which have prevailed from time immemorial and with the decision of the supreme court of tile the united S ates all ail ot of which are in accord with each other and with that common sense which should underlie all law and enter into the administration of all measures for the public welfare in their eager anxiety to push to extremes the unprecedented proceedings against tile the harmons mormons Mor Hor mons I 1 attorney dickson and justice zane have made i serious blunder as well as perpetrated a flagrant legal outrage against the hoffie abe the family and the sacred rightson rights right of wifehood which they have hypocritically pretended td desire to protect |