Show p Iuu I I CANNONS COHABl ATION What Acts Are Necessary to Constitute I the Offense II Judge Zanes Lengthy Opinion On This Question I The Case Goes to the Jury and a Verdict I Ver-dict of Guilty Returned I The discussion on the question as to what constitutes cohabitation which was raised in the Cannon trial yeslerltiy afternoon was most extended and was participated in by the most able advocates advo-cates of the Salt Lake bar Mr Varian who opened the discussion was followed 1 by Messrd Sutherland and Kirkpatrick on behalf of the defense The position assumed by them was that the term cohabitation co-habitation meant actual sexual intercourse inter-course and that was the construction placed upon it by the defendant It would therefore be competent to show that he complied with the law as he understood it Judge Kirkpatrick quoted a clause from Judge Zanes charge to the jury in the Clawson case as follows Cohabitation Cohabita-tion in the legal sense as applied to this I case is living together as hushand and wife or under such circumstances as would lead to a reasonable belief of the parties sexual intercourse When Judge Kirkpatrick had finished I court was adjourned until 10 oclock this I morning THE DISCUSSION RESUMED The discussion was continued this morning by 1 Arthur Brown Esq on behalf be-half of the defense He took the position that the intention of the Edmunds law was to prohibit sexual intercourse between be-tween those who had married previous to the passage of the act and not to prevent the polygamous husbands from supporting support-ing their wives and children This was I the entire object and aim of the Edmunds act u Bishopon Marriages and Divorces was quoted to show that a refusal to have sexual intercourse on the part of husband or wife constituted desertion The term living together as husband and wife could mean nothing else than living together to-gether with sexual intercourse The j charge of Judge Zane to the jury in the Clawson case was alluded to and the fact I that it had been adopted and affirmed by the Supiene Court of the United States gave it additional weight The fact that Itudger Clawson was married to his plural wife did not constitute cohabitation cohabita-tion but it was the secret intercourse that made the offense MH DICKSON Then arose to close the argument and commenced with a reply to some of the positions assumed by Mr Brown and a different construction was placed on the authorities quoted and rulings cited by him Ii the intention of the Edmunds act was simply to prohibit sexual intercourse inter-course it was strange the object had not been expressed with more certainty The opinion of the Supreme Court in the Commissioners Com-missioners cases did not indicate that the nnrh iimforatnnd nohibitntion to mean unn actual sexual intercourse It was a polygamists poly-gamists privilege and duty to support and educate his polygamous children and to support his polygamous wife but it was not necessary in order to do that for him to cohabit with her as his wife The meaning of the word cohabit depended on the connection with which it was used There never was a lexicographer who construed the term to mean sexual intercourse Webster defines i it as U living together as husband hus-band and wife and Worcesters definition is in substance the same The I primary meaning of the word cohabit is to dwell with some one Whenever the courts have been called upon to determine de-termine the meaning of the term they have placed the same construction upon it that t the prosecution docs in this case The intention of Congress in framing the Edmunds law was to extirpate the system I sys-tem of plural marriage in practice in Utah and not to punish adultery or other I sexual offenses that are regarded as evils by all classes Those crimes were left to be regulated by the local Legislature The polygamic and monogamic systems of marriage were so antagonistic that they could not both exist side by side The polygamic would supplant the monoga miu unless repressed by legislation The evil influence exerted by a polygamist living together with several women as his wives was sought to be arrested by this act The question was submitted to the Court at 12150 and Judge Zane announced an-nounced he would give his decision at 2 I oclock until which hour court adjourned THIS AFTERNOON I The usual jam of spectators filled the court room this afternoon and immediately immedi-ately after court was called Judge Zane delivered his decision The opinion was oral and was very long its delivery occupying occu-pying over an hour THE DECISION The court first reviewed the proceedings proceed-ings in the case the testimony of the witness Clara C Cannon and the question ques-tion propounded to her by the defense was read by the stenographer The counsel for the g ivernment had objectedto this question as having an intention in-tention to show that defendant did not occupy the same bed room of bedSvith the witness and as tending to show the absence of sexual intercourse and the counsel for both sides have treated the question as asked for that purpose The Court proposed to treat it as if asked for that purpose and to pass upon it as such The counsel for the government took the position that it was immaterial I whether sexual intercourse was practiced to constitute cohabitation Their view was that if the defendant LIVED IN TilE SAME HOUSE With these two women and held them out to the world as his wives it was immaterial im-material whether they occupied the same II bed The counsel for the defense insisted that it was essential that it be made to I appear that the defendant actually had sexual intercourse with both of these women in order to prove unlawful cohabitation I coha-bitation The section of the Edmunds law under which this prosecution was brought was I read by the Court The counsel for the respective parties had given to the word I cohabits cohabitation different meanings When the language of an act is clear I and the meaning is clear there is no room for construction but if I j TIlE IMPORT IS DOUBTFUL I It is the duty of the Court to construe it II in the light of the rules that have been I established through the ages One of the e rules and one that is probably always I I al-ways resorted tois that the language to I Ibe construed must oe considered in connection con-nection with the entire act in which it occurs and another familiar rule is to I ascertain I I I THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW I I And the evil that was intended to be remedied I Taking the whole of the Edmunds act I together it would seem from the act I itself to be aimed at polygamy orin f other words the protection of the mono gamic marriage The language used seems to be directed against the relationship relation-ship where it exists with two or more women and has no application where it exists with only one woman The first section relates to the formal marriage marriage according to the forms of law but it was assumed there might be some difficulty in proving a second marriage and hence the third section was aimed at the appearance of marriage The relationship rela-tionship between husband and wife is not like any other on the earth and this relationship re-lationship gives rise to a different class of conduct The conduct that arises from this relationship is different from any other Along with it grow the FLOWERS THAT ADORN HUMAN NATURE And sweeten domestic life and society This law was intended to prohibit the marriage between two or more persons in appearance only which is shown and proved by conduct Error custom habit among men are propagated largely by example and the Congress of the United States seeing that a church had engrafted into its religion reli-gion the system of polygamy and the example of men who were leaders lead-ers in the community and were practising polygamy by living with two or more women doubtless desired to remove that example because the example ex-ample of any number of prominent men in a community if it is a wrong example is dangerous and it spreads like a disease dis-ease It was the example that the statute stat-ute doubtless intended to more particularly particu-larly reach If this system was FREE FROM RELIGION It would not be difficult to handle but when people get an idea that the Supreme Ruler of the universe haH revealed his will to a prophet and that they are obeying his commands it is difficult to get at it The people of the United States have expressed their belief that the monogamic institution is the only form of I marriage that should be allowed to exist They lelieve that institution has taken woman by the hand led 1 her out from barbarism and placed her on a plane with man and they dont intend that ANY SECT OR ANY PEOPLE Shall overthrow it It is idle to say that this institution of polygamy is simply a I question between individuals It affects society because the perfection of society I depends upon the perfection of its units The Court was of the opinion that it was not necessary to show sexual intercourse j I inter-course in order to t establish cohabitation It was sufficient to show that a man lived with more than one woman and holds them up to the world as his wives The objection was therefore sustained This decision is one of vital importance and practically makes Cannons case a hopeless oneTime one-Time testimony of Geo M Cannon Angus An-gus M Cannon jr and Clara C Cannon Can-non was then taken after which the case was submitted without argument Judge Zane charged the jury in sub stanse that if they found defendant de-fendant had lived in the same house with the two women and treated them as his wives a verdict of guilty should be returned even though it did not appear that he had occupied the same bed or slept in the same room with them The jury then retired 5 p i mThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment |