OCR Text |
Show A RIGHT DECISION -THE HILT0N-ROYLANCE CASE. The decision of the Hilton-Roylance case by the Supreme court, it seems to us, is the only one that could have been made under the law. The parties under the rites of the church to which they belonged be-longed were united by a covenant called sealing. It is explained that this was merely a spiritual adjustment intended to give the lady a certainty of possessing a husband in the world to come. But evidently this was distrusted even at the time, because be-cause a church divorce was resorted to to break the tie. The proceedings for divorce were a full acknowledgment of the marriage. The laws prescribe pre-scribe but one way through which a divorce can be obtained and this way was not resorted to. But there is much more to this matter. The Mormons proceed under a so-called prophecy which to them is a real prophecy. When that is examined we discover dis-cover that the prophecy makes sealing a marriage for time and eternity, and pronounces fearful penalties pen-alties against all who would change its expressed command in the least. It is clear that this was perfectly understood by the parties at the time, else no form of divorce would have been resorted to. Again, there can be no other understanding of the ceremony, for construed as it was sought to bo construed, there could be no possible legal check on wholesale polygamy under the name of sealing, ft is clear that the man and woman who were Principals in this matter were absolutely married. Tho ofilciatlng priest had power to perform the ceremony, the form followed was the accepted one in the church. Nothing more would have been necessary had they began and continued to live to-B to-B gether. That they never did does not alter in the j least the legal status of their relations. H The truth is they were married and never di- vorced. To aeny the marriage is to fly in the face of the prophecy of Joseph Smith, and the expounding expound-ing of the prophecy by all the distinguished successors suc-cessors of Joseph Smith in the Presidency of the church. Being married, they were never by any legal process, by any process accepted by the law, divorced. And there you are. The News says that in order to reach its conclusions con-clusions the court had to go outside the record of the case. That is true. The court was called upon to pass upon the validity of a marriage that was solemnized solemn-ized when Utah was practically under eccleastical rule. The court naturally had to investigate what made a valid marriage at that time. The News tells of "numerous cases of sealing in which the parties were united for time only." Has that been where both the man and woman were Mormons? If so, by what authority was the marriage mar-riage revelation as given by Joseph Smith set aside? Again, the News says, "a sealing may be for eternity and not for time; that this is a matter which is not explained in church meetings and with which courts have nothing to do." That may be true, but the case in hand was so manifest that the parties sought a divorce. The fact of their seeking a divorce was prima facia evidence that they believed they were husband and wife. The argument of the News that there is nothing in the certificate given by the minister who performed per-formed the ceremony "that settles the question as to the scope of the ceremony." That wa3 why the court went to the books of the Mormon creed to ascertain just what scope such a sealing had. Again the News says: "The President of the Church neve issued such documents (a certificate of divorce) in the case of a legal wife unless it has first been passed upon by a civil court." That may be true now, but how was it when this divorce di-vorce was granted? Is it not true that divorces were given with as little ceremony as the old Israelites employed when they gave their wives a writing that they were tired of them? It is one of the painful reminders of what transpired trans-pired in Utah when the power that ruled hero defied the power of the sovereignity of our Republic. Repub-lic. It may be unpleasant and uncomfortable to have such things sprung at this date, but the law is law. |