| Show polygamous RELATIONS r the following is the opinion ren tiered dered in the bennett case a synod oie do of which appeared in our last the question asked by mr P baw law lins aud and objected to by judge r powers is as follows what has been the reputation among your mothers relatives and the defend santay auts as to their having finally and fukay separated from one another as n husband bufi banu and wifel wife THE DECISION judge zane said the question mad is objected to ou on the ground T that chat it is Imi immaterial nater W and irrelevant Pee because ause as insisted insist eJ if a bufi us marriage with this woman in respect to whom the question was kled was proven that it continues antu the defendant obtains pardon daod sad amnesty from the president of the united states that no agreement We ement between the parties to the polygamous relation is sufficient though made iu in good faith and the parties thereafter cease to recognize each other as aa husband and wife and refuse to maintain the relation by act or intent the eighth section of an act of congress approved march ad is as follows no polygamist bl bigamist gamit or any person cohabiting with more than one woman and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid in this section in any territory or other place over which the united states have exclusive jurisdiction shall be entitled to vote at any election held field in any such territory etc the question is what is the meaning of the term terin polygamist 0 lyga mist as used in this section ff if it is a relationship what is necessary to terminate it the act of congress known as the ed munds rucker law which is an amendment to this statute uses similar langu language I 1 e th the e last clause of section 24 act is as follows no person erson who shall have been convicted of any crime under this act or under the act of con greas aforesaid approved march aress and 2nd 1882 or who shall tie lie a polygamist or who shall associate or cohabit with persons of the other sex shall be entitled to vote veto in any election in said terri 1 tory or be capable of jury service or to hold bold any office of trust or emolument in said territory i in the general sense a man is termed a polygamist who practices polygamy or who maintains that it is right that would be broader than intended of this statute tile the supreme court of the united states in the eme case of murphy vs P ramsey U S page 40 referred to has had the question con consideration 8 tie raton that was an action ag against al nat the utah tah commissioners 0 for o r refusing to r register egister the plaintiff in that case and in reference i to one of the questions raised by demurrer the court says flays but in both cases the complaints omit the allegation that at the time the plaintiffs respectively claimed to be registered as voters they were not such either a bigamist or a polygamist lyga mist 12 they did not den deny y in the complaint t that hat they were biga mists or polygamists at the time they offered to re register later and the demurrer was to the enet effect that the complaint was in not so eo averring the court says further it is argued that they cannot be understood as meaning those who prior to the passage of the act of march 1882 had contracted a bigamous or polygamous I 1 marriage either in violation of an existing law such as that of july J uly lat 1862 or before the enactment of any law forbidding it for to do so would give to the statute a retrospective effect and by thus depriving citizens of civil rights merely on account of acts which when committed were not offenses would make it an ex post facto law the question was whether the law in question applied to such persons as entered into polygamy before the act referred to took effect or whether it referred to an existing relation in our opinion any man is a polygamist or bigamist in the sense of this section of the act who having previously married one wife still living and having another at the kinle ti roe when he presents himself to claim registration as a voter still mat maintains u tat na th that at relation to a pl plurality u clity of wives although from the date of the passage of the act of march 22 1882 until the day he offers to register and vote he may not in fact have more than one woman without regard to the question whether at the time he entered into such relation it was a prohibited and punishable offense or whether by reason of lapse of time since its commission a prosecution for it toay may not be barred if be still maintains maint aim the relation he be Is a bigamist or polygamist because that is the status which the fixed habit and practice of his living has established he has a plurality of wives more than one woman whom he recognizes izes as a wife of whose children he is 18 the acknowledged father and whom with their children child ren he mountains maintains as ao a family of which he is the head A nd this status as to several wives may well COUtin continue tAe to exist as a practical relation although for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than one for that is ie quite consistent with the constant recognition of the same relation to many accompanied with a possible aporale intention to renew cohabitation with one or more of the others when it may be convenient and further in the opinion the court ways says but because having at a some ome time entered into a bigamous or polygamous relation by a marriage with a second or third wife while the first was living he still MU maintains it and has not dissolved it although for the time being he restricts actual tion don to but oue one he might in fact abstain from actual cohabitation withal with all and be still as s much as ever a bigamist or a polygamist he can only cease to be sue such h when he has finally and fully dissolved in some effective manner which we are not called on here to io point out the very relation of husband to several wives which constitutes the forbidden status he has previously ahe ly assumed 11 the crime of bigamy or polygamy consists in entering into a bigamous or polygamous marriage and is complete when the relation begins that of actual cohabitation with more than one woman is defined sad and the punishment prescribed in the third section the disfranchisement opera operates upon the existing status and condition of the person anti ami not upon a past offense ferson it t is therefore not retrospective he alone is deprived of his vote who when he offers to register is then in the state and condition of a bigamist cr a polygamist or is then actually cohabiting with more than one woman continuing to live in that state afterwards is not an offense although cohabitation with more than one woman is but as one may be living in a bi ganous or polygamous state without cohabitation with more than one woman he is in that sense a bigamist or polygamist lyga mist and yet guilty of no criminal offense the point that the court seemed to have its attention more particularly directed to was as to whether cohabitation with more than one woman was essential to the justification of the registration officer in r refusing registration on the ground that the applicant was a cre polygamist I 1 byg and the definition given here seems to be with respect to that point The court says he can only cease to be such that is a 96 polygamist when he has finacy and feuy dissolved in some effective manner which we axe are not called on here to point 0 int out the very relation of husband lius 9 vi to several wives which constitutes utes the forbidden status he be has previously ly assumed the court 9 held eld that the polygamous relation may exist though the polygamous marriages may have been contracted before the law took effect and it may exist though the parties do no not actually cohabit together the question is what is necessary to constitute the relation because it is a relation it is the relation which a polygamist bears to his wives where there is no cohabitation existing what therefore is necessary sary to constitute a polygamous relation where there is no cohabitation the court says he still maintains that relation to a plurality of wives and further if he still maintains mainwal ns the relation he is a bigamist or polygamist lyga mist 11 II what to is the deanin meaning of this term maintain as here used used does it simply mean the relation that may exist after the parties have ft f t in good faith agreed to be husband and wife no longer and ceased to recognize each other as such and refuse by physical or mental act to maintain tai t ai u the polygamous relation does it mean simply the relation existing ny by reanon bewon of the former unlawful marriage and cohabitation to maintain in its ordinary sense means to continue by act or intent it includes some consent some act of the mind there mav not be beany any outward act but some act of the mind consenting to the continuance of the relation consenting to recognize the woman as his wife consenting to maintain the relation is necessary the court further says he has a plurality of wives more than one woman whom he recognizes as a wife of whose children he was the acknowledged father there the necessity of recognition is stated that he be recognize her in some way and there is no way of recognizing except by some act of the mind admitting the relation as existing the question is whether a man recognizes a woman as his wife when both agree that she shall not be his wife when they ave in good faith said that they will not I 1 live I 1 ve together and when they refuse to cont continue n ue the relation and to recognise recognize the relation la 18 that a reco recognition guition the court says further recognizes a wife of whose children he is the acknowledged father and whom with their children he maintains as a family of which he is the head there the court undertakes un to give a description of what constitutes the relation I 1 confess it is a very imperfect one he ha hai i a plurality of wives more than one woman whom he recognizes as a wife of whose children childr en he is the acknowledged father and whom with their children he main bains as a family of which he is the head the court speaks of the po lyga mou mour relation as a status a state or condition is here referred to a status which the law recognizes as unlawful the law may reco recognize things as lawful or unlawful unlawful when unlawful it is condemned and this status as to several wives may well continue to exist the court says as a practical relation although for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than one for that is quite consistent with the constant recognition of the same relation to many accompanied with a possible in intention to renew cohabitation with one or more of the othe others rs when it ma may y be convenient 21 it is spoken of as a practical relation although for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than one woman for that is quite consistent with constant recognition so that the court holds to the idea that there must be recognition to constitute the polygamous relation the idea Is held all through the opinion that there must be recognition af pf the relation there must be a recognition thattie that the woman is his wife the court refused to say in terms how the relationship could be terminated it says bays he can only cease to be such when he has finally and fully dissolved the relation in some effective mauner manner 11 yh edaa S the most effectual manner of lla be solving the polygamous relation is in for the man and his polygamous ale cieto to agree in gcoy faith to minate mi nate and disso dissolve ve the polygamous t relation tu cease to recognize each other as man and wife rind and to refuse to mai maintain atai n the relation conw ngaw A divorce would not of itself terminate unlawful cohabitation antt ana pardon anti and amnesty would not taw minate the polygamous relation r the parties should bouti continue nue to mx aize each as husband and wife such a conati action as given above 1 7 encourages polygamists to abandola unlawful cohabitation and abo tb polygamous relation and in tt talk respect to obey the law and good citizens citizen 4 the d dissolution would be effective if the pa J before other persons agree in SW faith to separate and aate continue to disregard the relation and abandon it and AM refuse to recognize each othe husband and wife of course it W for the jury to determine whether the dissolution is in good faith and add whether the parties are keeping it pardon and amnesty axe are not intended as a means of terminating a polygamous relation remission of the conseal consequences bences of an offense after the parties have been convicted is 18 the remission of the consequences of a crime and may be after or before a conviction though pardoned the dir te 1 fondant might be guilty of I 1 maintaining and add recognizing th the e polygamous relation it is for the jury to determine whether the parties in good faith have terminated the polygamous relation in this case and the evidence on th that poi nt that is competent is admissible the rhe only question left is whether the answer to question tends tend to prove the dissolution of the relation nd tends to prow prove that the parties in good laith faith are a keeping the dissolution whether they consider the marriage as adte solved and in good faith are keep lg ing the their ir agreement i |
