Show THE LAW AND ITS perversion THE supreme court of the united states in announcing the unanimous decision reversing the ruling of the utah courts on the segregation seRie gatlon question necessarily touched on the meaning of the term unlawful ep habits tion because that was the offense which was sought to be segregated by the utah courts so as to Corti comprehend as many offenses as a grand jury or of a district attorney might feel inclined to make of it the main point of the decision is that a defendant can only be prosecuted for one offense of this character up to the date of the indictment against him and the court explains the principle and the wrong perpetrated by the utah courts in this wa way it is to prevent such an ip application ot of penal laws that the rule nas has obtained that a continuing offense of the character of the one in this case can be committed but once tor for the purpose of indictment or prosecution prior to the time the at is instituted 11 this mis is so plain and ana emphatic that anat a fee making attorney eva even u though a fool need not err therein perean it leaves no loophole for annetti fogging dodge or feat beat of judicial gymnastics to pass by or jump through to escape it it settles the segregation business for good divided indictments multiplied counts and the rest of the wretched perversions that the utah courts sustained as law so much tor for the chief question at issue asa feature of the controversy the signification of the term used in n 1 the creation of the of fence was also considered and passed upon the principal point was its continuous character the next in im importance or was its nature or essence ter here is what toe the court said on that subject the offence offense of cohabitation in the sense of this statute is committed if there is a livi living or dwelling together as husband anT and wife it is inherently a continuous of fence having duration and not an offence offense consist consisting irig of an isolated act this definition of the offence offense created by the edmunds act of 1882 is the law in utah and the other territories it way may not be the law in the states because their statutes are not framed or interpreted in for a special auti anti mor imor mon purpose and as explained by two justices of the supreme court of the united states on a former occasion the term was never before used in criminal jurisprudence without comprehending pre hending that intimacy which common understanding accords to that language but be that as it may the paragraph quoted above stands at as the law on this subject in all places over which the united states claim exclusive jurisdiction s 4 and it is certain that nothing less than the conduct described therein thelvin can possible constitute the offence offense marked out for punishment cohabit means to live or dwell together nothing less and nothing more if persons live apart they cannot possibly cohabit people who reside together lu in the same family cohabit co babil in it a broad a and ad general sense all people cohabit that is live together or at the same time lor they live at once in the same world bringing the terni term into narrower limits they cohabit if they live at the same time in ia the same town or neighborhood neighborhood or street or house but in n the common sense they do not cohabit unless they occupy the same saine apart apartments menta for often several alies particularly kin in crowded cities live separately to in the same alae tenement louse house and they are not understood to cohabit because they dwell apart for the purposes of the act court of final appelt appeal says means living or dwelling to gether as aa husband and wife and thai living together must be continuous the meaning of the be very language requires MIS 18 mutual kaoi habitation tation the parties must dwell together for some continuous period or they do not cohabit in any capacity A man who has a plural wife one who wao is not a wife in law but whom he considers and claims as his wife before god and the church of whick which he is a member must live or dwell with her as a wife or he does not and cannot cohabit with h her er either in the meaning of the statute as authoritatively defined or the philological and popular signification of the term A visit to the plural wife or to her children an occasional meeting in society or at a public gathering pecuniary support attentions that thai may be innocently bestowed upon a friend or chance acquaintance anything short of dwelling with her as a wife for some continuous period is not unlawful cos COB h a thousand inferior judges thu thunder uder it from the bench or distort language with it for the purpose of sending g men to prison to arati ty ly a 9 malignant bigoted and revengeful spirit and every man so committed to the penitentiary in defiance of the ruling of the supreme court of the united states is a victim to judicial wrong he is falsely imprisoned his incarceration is an outrage upon law upon common sense and upon human liberty there is a I 1 no justification for lit it it Is isan jail offen offense offence against reason and justice it demands a righteous retribution and it will receive it assure as sure as there is aa eternal judge or an everlasting principle of compensation if the detention of prisoners in the penitentiary ar r more than six months on titie the false theory eory of segregation was unlawful so is the conviction of defendants fend ants unlawful which is predicated on the ruling of af the utah courts upon the meaning of unlawful cohabits cohabitation 91 wherein it conflicts with the definition announced by the highest tribunal in the laud land aud it is only continued for the purpose of punishing mormons cormons Mor mons in excess of law because it is if believed to be una p pes lable bacate to the e court of final review the segregation infamy would in all probability never have been perpetrated if it had been thought susceptible ble of higher adjudication no lawyer of standing believed it to be sound it was used for the unlawful punishment of mormons cormons Mor mons because its users thought they held invincible power for the purpose it was the arbitrary exercise of might oyer over ri right lit so with the imprisonment of cormons mormons Mor mons on rulings that are in violation of the definitions of the highest court in the country I 1 what f but a manly and honorable and dignified and respectable and law abiding course y is it not to send men to prison simply because one can do 0 so and legal technicalities only ii prevent the right righting leial ng of the wrung wrong A just and simple people ought surely to bow an embodo ment of law and authority of lofty principle and unswerving equity of unbiased impartiality and passionless integrity I 1 the supremacy of the law can never be promoted by byu a perversion of the law anything g that savors of persecution renders prosecution measurably futile excesses in society cannot be corrected by excesses on t the 1 I bench and while the lower courts vado evade the rulings of the higher it is not to be reasonably son sibly expected that their decisions will gain respect or that offenders will refrain from such evasions of law as are possible under any circumstance there baere should be no legal wrong without legal remedy and it may be that those who planned and consummated the iniquity of segregation segie gatlon under the mistaken assurance that their deeds were beyond rebuke will yet find themselves in error in persisting in the course which they are now pursuing and which is equally unlawful and unreasonable bet jet the victims to the wrong have patience justice lives and is a not asleep but time and perseverance are needful to determine the be final issue we will watch and wait and work I 1 |