Snow v. United States
| Decision Date | 10 May 1886 |
| Parties | SNOW v. UNITED STATES. (Three Cases.) 1 Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
F. S. Richards and Geo. T. Curtis, for Lorenzo Snow.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
These are three writs of error to the supreme court of he territory of Utah to review judgments of that court affirming judgments of the district court of the First judicial district of that territory, rendered on convictions of the plaintiff in error on indictments founded on section 3 of the act of March 22, 1882, (22 St. 31,) for cohabiting with more than one woman. Each of the judgments imposed imprisonment for six months and a fine of $300.
The question of the jurisdiction of this court over these writs of error presents itself at the threshold. It was not suggested by the counsel for the United States at the argument, nor referred to by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, for the reason, as the court has been advised by both parties since the argument, that a decision on the merits was desired; and for the further reason that this court, at the present term, in Cannon v. U. S., 116 U. S. 55, S. C. ante, 278, took cognizance of a writ of error in a like case. But the question has presented itself to the court, and since the argument we have been furnished with a brief, on the part of the plaintiff in error, in support of the jurisdiction.
Section 702 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows:
So much of this section 702 as relates to the territory of Utah was carried into the section from section 9 of the act of September 9 1850, establishing a territorial government for Utah, (9 St. 455,) which provided that writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of the territory should be allowed, and might be taken to the supreme court of the United States, 'where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party or other competent witness,' should exceed $1,000, except only that in all cases involving title to slaves, and on any writ of error or appeal on a habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom, no regard should be had to value. So much of section 702 as provides for the review of 'any final judgment or decree' of the supreme court of the Territory of Washington 'in any cause when the constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States is brought in question,' is taken from the act of March 2, 1853, establishing a territorial government for Washington, (10 St. 175,) which, after providing that writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of the territory should be allowed, and might be taken to the supreme court of the United States, 'where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party or other competent witness,' should exceed $2,000, went on in these words, which were not found in the prior act of 1850, in regard to Utah: 'And in all cases where the constitution of the United States, or acts of congress, or a treaty of the United States, is brought in question.'
It is plain that section 702, so far as Utah is concerned, does not cover the present cases, and that the provision in it in regard to cases where the constitution, or an act of congress, or a treaty, is brought in question has reference only to Washington, and not to Utah.
Section 1909 of the Revised Statutes provides that writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of the supreme court of any one of eight named territories, of which Utah is one, 'shall be allowed to the supreme court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit courts of the United States, where the value of the property, or the amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath of either party or of other competent witnesses, exceeds one thousand dollars,' except that a writ of error or appeal shall be allowed 'upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom.' This section does not cover the present cases.
Section 1911 relates exclusively to writs of error and appeals from Washington Territory, and contains a provision that they shall be allowed 'in all cases where the constitution of the United States, or a treaty thereof, or acts of congress, are brought in question.' That provision exists only in regard to Washington, and is not found in section 1909 in regard to the eight other territories.
Section 709 of the Revised Statutes applies only to a writ of error to review a final judgment or decree in a suit in the highest court of a state.
There being thus no statute in force on December 1, 1873, to which time the enactments in the Revised Statutes related, giving to this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to the supreme court of Utah in a case like those before us, an act was passed on June 23, 1874, (18 St. 253,) entitled 'An act in relation to courts and judicial officers in the territory of Utah;' section 3 of which contained this provision: 'A writ of error from the supreme court of the United States to the supreme court of the territory shall lie in criminal cases, where the accused shall have been sentenced to capital punishment, or convicted of bigamy or polygamy.' The writ of error in Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, was brought under that statute; the conviction being for bigamy under section 5352 of the Revised Statutes. This section (5352) was taken from section 1 of the act of July 1, 1862, (12 St. 501,) entitled 'An act to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the territories of the United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah,' which section 1 declares that every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a territory of the United States, shall (with certain exceptions) be adjudged guilty of bigamy. The act then proceeds to disapprove and annul all acts and parts of acts theretofore passed by the legislative assembly of Utah 'which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy,' with the proviso that the act should 'not affect or interfere with the right 'to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,' but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.' Hence section 3 of the act of 1874, in speaking of 'bigamy or polygamy,' referred to the crime denounced by section 1 of the act of 1862 as carried into the Revised Statutes.
Then came the act of March 22, 1882, (22 St. 30,) section 1 of which amended section 5352 of the Revised Statutes; the original and new sections 5352 () being as follows, the parts in each which differ from the other being in italic:
ORIGINAL.
'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not more than five years.'
NEW.
'Every person who has a husband or wife living, who, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'
Section 3 of the act of 1882 is the one on which the indictments in these cases were founded. It is in these words: 'If any male person, in a territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thayer
...than one woman, and was not legally either bigamy or polygamy. This same statute came under consideration again in Snow v. U. S., 118 U. S. 346, 6 Sup. Ct. 1059, 30 L. Ed. 206, where the defendant had been convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment for six months, and fined $300. The question......
-
Potter v. Murray City
...103 U.S. 304, 26 U.S. 481 (1881); Cannon v. United States, 116 U.S. 55, 6 S.Ct. 278, 29 L.Ed. 561 (1885); Snow v. United States, 118 U.S. 346, 6 S.Ct. 1059, 30 L.Ed. 207 (1886); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890); Late Corporation of Latter-Day Saints v. United......
-
Milling Co v. Bondurant
...(See original records.) Compare Plainters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301, 307, 12 L. Ed. 477. 9 Compare, also, Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 353, 6 Sup. Ct. 1059, 30 L. Ed. 207, Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 9 Sup. Ct. 503, 32 L. Ed. 908, District of Columbia v. ......
-
Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po
...Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 132 F.2d 374, 377. 21 United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172, 2 L.Ed. 397; Snow v. United States, 118 U.S. 346, 354, 6 S.Ct. 1059, 1063, 30 L.Ed. 207; Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 82, 87, 13 S.Ct. 22, 23, 36 L.Ed. 896; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U.S. 225, ......