Show U CANON AND MUSSER Arc The Honest Men or Are They Humbug f EDITOR DEMOCRAT The man who makes sacrifices for what he believes to be the right is entitled to respect however how-ever mistaken he may be But a man I who braves a court for the sake of cheap notoriety is beneath contempt I Both Cannon and Mower by their attorneys i at-torneys in their late trials and in person when called for sentence claimed to have I lived within the provisions of the Ed munch law since its passage and not to have disobeyed it I NEVERTHELESS BOTH WERE CONVICTED There was no material contest over the facts involved in either case The substance sub-stance of the contest was on the proper construction of the word cohabit as used in the statute Cannon Musser and their counsel claimed that this word means sexual commerce or that at least sexual commerce is necessarily a component in the crime The Court holds that though sexual commerce may accompany the crime it i is not necessarily a part of it but that the offense consists in the living with two or more women at the same time in the I OSTENSIBLE RELATIONSHIP OF MARRIAGE I Now as to the cases of Cannon and Musser of what importance is this distinction I dis-tinction between their definition of cohabitation co-habitation and the Courts definition Whatis thediflerence in the definitions so far as these men or their future is concerned con-cerned Simply this Whether or not their abode is or shall be the same as that of the women who formerly as they say were their wives Cannon and Musser both claim that since the existence exist-ence of the Edmunds law they have had no marital relations with the women in question other than to stay at the same house and eat their meals with them The Court says you may act as friends of j I these women may support and assist I II j I them If you do not live with them no I offense is chargeable to you While this is the difference between the two constructions and the only 1 dif fereiice what is THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED Contemptible as this difference is John Taylor is on the side of the Court Mr Taylor at once recognized the prohibition of living together and therefore upon the passage of the act sent all his women except one to other abodes than his ownat least he so avowedin public and it has never heen contradicted Had Cannon and Musser done the same they would never have been charged with the offense Had they expressed a willingness willing-ness to do so in future when they were called for sentence they would since have been at large I I INSTEAD OF IN THE PEN Would they have sacrificed any principle princi-ple in doing it Not an iota and they knew it too But instead of acting the part of moral lawrespecting citizens they preferred to parade themselves be fore a crowd of credulous deluded sympathizers V sym-pathizers as sufferers for their principles I hoping and trusting that the lions skin was extensive enough TO HIDE TWO ASSES It was not and it cant be stretched so as to do it If the silly dupes who shed tears over them had common sense the treatment bestowed would be such as fits charlatans and humbugs instead of such as fits martyrs c |