Show aimed artlie mormon relation and not at sexual sius audgo power s in his opinion delivered in the musser case makes aneff brt to clear mist from this particular point but it is still evelo oed in the fog of uncertainty the from his opinion may be taken as his definition of conduct harmonious with the subtle statute that leads to such astonishing and complicated results as which are constantly exhibited in the courts of utah the defendant claims that there bisno law that requires him to divorce himself from the women that is true but alie effect of the edmunds act is to require him to treat these women substantially as lie would be required to treat them if he had been divorced from them by a court of competent jurisdiction in ny opinion a man who las heretofore contracted a polygamous marriage and lias had children by two or more women is required as stated to treat these women precisely as lie would bo required to treat them iffie had been divorced from them A man divorced from a women is under legal obligations to support her children lie may be required by the de cree of the court to support ilia wife and to pay to her stated sums at elated intervals but with the exception of the business relation which exists between him and hi former wife it is not expected that ho will hare any further intimacy with her he may visit ins children he may make directions with regard to their welfare lie may meet his former wife on terms of social equality but it is not expected after the des arce of divorce that he will associate with his former wife that he will live under alie bamo roof and to outward appearances live with her as a husband lives with his wife the ed rounds diw says hero must be an end and end relationship previously existing between the par ties whatever it was it says that the relationship must cease this a tolerably clear of how a man may treat his plural wives and children and remain in harmony with the edmunds law but the question is could he not go considerably further than the boundary thus benned denned and still not bo in conflict with it we are not now assuming the position that he could but we du contrad that he could step over the powers delimitation hue so far as tho adopted theory in regard to the intent and applicability of the act is concerned as con by the three utah judges who are a unit on that point they all hold that it was exclusively aimed at the mormon marriage relation and was not intended to deal with sexual sins suppose then that a man and his wife aro legally divorced carry cas estill further if subsequent to tho granting of the decree of divorcement the couple should without being again married in addition to adopting the course judge powers outlines as tho one they would be expected to follow live together in the same house occupy the same bed pro duce and rear children what would be they would be guilty of sexual sin which the district attorney truly and aptly asserted the cormons mormons Mor mons condemn if such a case occurred here the male principal to the transaction the judges would not be in the slight ed angor from the operations of the edmunds act which is not directed against sexual sins then all of this conduct is ahac a man may en gage in no matter what is expected ot him alio lias been legally divorced from his wife how would it operate if a man were to deport himself similarly toward his plural wife could he ha made to alie penalties of the edmunda law providing he did not claim that the woman was his wife or is the conduct of a roan toward a woman alio stands in the relationship of a plural wife to him to be regulated by what is expected from a man towards a woman from whom ho is divorced and not what he may do with impunity so fur RS the edmunds act ia concerned it appears that the entire pro gramme of what a man who lias been divorced may do could be carried out in the case of the po lyga mist BO long as he was not guilty of holding out his plural wife to alie world as his wife in point of fact it would not even change the status of his justi fica tion if his plural wife should call him husband and in every way treat him as such so that he did not convey the idea publicly eliat she was hia wife certainly the conduct of the man divorced would convey the idea that the woman was still his wite and his conduct would continue with impunity even if iu the meantime he had married another yet he would bo exempt from the penalties of the edmunds act alie construction judicially placed upon the edmunds law ia that it ia not aimed at genuine crime and moral rottenness it h held to be in the nature of a blow at a corn in unity consequently it is a boil on the seat of jurisprudence which squirms every attempts to eit down upon ita proposed victim |