Show COHABITATION iW y rm n lii the edmunds act was unfortunate A term ought to have been substituted or else the law itself should leavo defined the word clearly and conardy conas dy so haat jio judge could have twisted ita mean iner 6 uit hi C 1 i i ff kj according cons means together as hus band bad wife and according to the popular and beneral everyday 7 fr acceptation alio word presupposes pre supposes sexual commerce if it could properly blaid that it only meant the ling together roofo fone man and one or more women then we say that a man and his hired girl were cohabiting together because they were domiciled in one and the same house if it bo true that the legal of the I 1 term nothing more than the condition of living together under one roof then perfectly innocent parties in all parts of the united states as well as utah are of what criminal cohabitation it is obvious therefore that congress did not use the word in this pense when that august body made it a crime forone man to cohabits 1 than one ii r r i 1 r bly no intention un den severe penalties a man from harboring harb bring or a daughter in hiag home in addition to his wife the certain intent of congress must have been prevent one man from living in the same domicile with more than one woman as his wife under the statutes the so called plural wives of the mor mons arc hot legal wives at all but nevertheless if a man lies with several woman to whom he is not legally married and hold wah each the relationship of a husband they may bo certainly considered as his wives how can any man be said to be livings with several aomen as his wives when they have never been joined to him in legaL wedlock the mere inzen women more orles nake tuela meals and cat with one man is no proof that be lives with all these females as wives there must then be some overt act which madest possible to distinguish between the women live with one man w his wives band the females that man as his servants or dependants when congress passed the ed rounds law iff was acting in compliance with a popular idea that plural marriage was immoral and jt of public morality for one roan to live with more than as his wife self evident that there can be nothing immoral in the act onar women a r u M i than one under his roof providing he does not cohabit or more hold sexual intercourse with two or s nf a jw them it perfects y clear that made cohabitation a crime it felt that such cohabitation was derogatory to good morals and meant to prohibit under stipulated penalties the practice of plural aex ual ori aliis only can cohabitation bs a crime congress never intended that the men alio entered jinto alio llio passage the edmunds act and were too so called ta T VI SS TO ft plural wives a separate habitation should be punished tor not turning them out 0 doors without any ceapa support pup port destitute n th 0 it idaa becu saad that the edmunds law was directed solely against the cormons mormons Mor mons and non mormon can be punished under its r 4 a lons but any sensible person alio lias any discernment must admit eliat congress was not bent on merel cause th cewe ro cormons mormons Mor mons ft only intended to punish the supposed or cofino mor mon sand certainly if it isa practice any given thing BoAlo 3 it equally a for ft christian a jew or a gen aleto iq practice it la thaw is criminal and not the peculiar faith of individuals that makes the same act a crime for one and not a crime for another to commit we believe that no candid impartial can doubt dqra moment hit cohabitation jhc thc edrict meaning aud intent of the edmunds act is sexual commerce it would otherwise by impossible to draw a clear demarcation between tho woman or women that a man lives with ashia wives and alic females that height harbor under his roof abis menials who ima upon his charity in ruling upon this matter judge zano has exhibited n shameful feat of legerdemain in one case he held that u unlawful cohabitation kastli wast li ct of one man in living with more than ono woman as hia wife or their s s y dwelling together under stances which would indicate be yonda reasonable doubt that the partied practiced sexual commerce andin subsequent cases His honor lias declared that one man living with more than under one roof was guilty of unlawful co habitation labi tation providing he held out the females as hiis when asked exactly what held out meant or implied but be decide d that testimony man with cohabitation ful had riot held sexual commerce with more than one woman was entirely immaterial and irrelevant as tending to prove defendants innocence on still another occasion judge zane has held anon win had co with his living cifes sister until the latter gave birth to a child jaaj not guilty of unlawful cohabitation presumably because not a mormon there can be no doubt but that congress designed Ue the edmunds act as a check to what way considered an immorality and yet under the rulings of the chief justice the force of the law is entirely directed against his own visionary holding out while illicit intercourse is air lowed to thrive under his friendly construction of the law and moreover ho virtually rules that cormons mormons Mor mons alone can be guilty of unlawful cohabitation this is the ignominious perversion of law and alie studious deliberate partiality which the cormons mormons Mor mons have protested against to president cleveland who has promised that the law shall be impartially administered ered indeed it would be an everlasting national disgrace if the chief magistrate should wink at such a construction of a law indisputably aimed at an alleged immor aliby ami yei BO aliu iu that those guilty of the designated practices that are immoral and criminal per se could always escape punishment if he be not a mormon while holding out whatever that faybe is alone considered and treated as the crime of unlawful cohabitation under the edmunds act in some states and countries sexual intercourse is regarded as a consummation of mars ariage even in the absence of the usual formal ceremonies and no man in any land can live with a woman as his wife without having first been legally wedded to her unless he holds sexual commerce with her And when a man ceases to hold sexual relations with a woman or a number of women to whom he has not been legally married she or they may dwell under the same roof with the man but cannot longer be fairly considered as his wife or wives and therefore he cannot be guilty of unlawful cohabitation with her or them this statement we believe will stand the severest teats of logical and rational analyn |