Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.8.6
|
Rescuing 4 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.5
|
||
(9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|US federal law}} |
|||
{{Infobox U.S. legislation |
{{Infobox U.S. legislation |
||
| shorttitle = Edmunds Act |
| shorttitle = Edmunds Act |
||
Line 57: | Line 58: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{LDSpolygamy}} |
{{LDSpolygamy}} |
||
The '''Edmunds Act''', also known as the '''Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882''',<ref name="Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882">U.S.History.com, [http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882].</ref> is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by President [[Chester A. Arthur]], declaring [[polygamy]] a [[felony]] in federal territories. The act is named for [[U.S. Senator]] [[George F. Edmunds]] of Vermont. |
The '''Edmunds Act''', also known as the '''Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882''',<ref name="Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882">U.S.History.com, [http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h734.html Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882].</ref> is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by President [[Chester A. Arthur]], declaring [[polygamy]] a [[felony]] in federal territories, punishable by "a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/edmundsact00unit/edmundsact00unit.pdf|title="The Edmunds Act"|website=Library of Congress}} 1882</ref> The act is named for [[U.S. Senator]] [[George F. Edmunds]] of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),<ref name="Anti-Polygamy Legislation">About Mormons, [http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/Legislation_EOM.htm Anti-Polygamy Legislation]. Accessed 2008.03.26.</ref> thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.<ref name="Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882"/> The act not only reinforced the 1862 [[Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act]] but also made the offense of unlawful cohabitation much easier to prove than polygamy misdemeanor and made it illegal for polygamists or cohabitants to [[right to vote|vote]], hold [[political office|public office]], or [[jury duty|serve on juries]] in federal territories.<ref name=Uhtg>{{cite web|title=Struggle For Statehood Chronology|editor-last=Thatcher|editor-first=Linda|url=http://www.historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html|publisher=State of Utah|access-date=February 15, 2017|archive-date=April 20, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160420100616/http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> |
||
A claim was made that the law violated the constitutional prohibition on ''[[ex post facto]]'' laws; that is, polygamists were charged for polygamist marriages solemnized before the passage of the statute. A challenge to the statute was framed on these and other grounds. The Supreme Court ruled, in ''Murphy v. Ramsey'', {{ussc|114|15|1885}}, that the statute was not ''ex post facto'' because convicts were charged for their continued [[cohabitation]], not for the prior [[illegal marriage]].<ref>See also [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D05E6DC1030E433A25757C2A9659C94649FD7CF "The Anti-Polygamy Law; Its Constitutionality Upheld by the Supreme Court"], ''The New York Times'', March 24, 1885, p. 3.</ref> Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for violating the [[Free Exercise Clause]].<ref>{{citation |first= Richard A. |last= Vazquez |date= Fall 2001 |title= The Practice of Polygamy: Legitimate Free Exercise of Religion or Legitimate Public Menace? Revising ''Reynolds'' in Light of Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence |journal= [[New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy]] |volume= 5 |issue= 1 |pages= 225–253 |publisher= [[New York University School of Law]] |url= http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Richard-A.-Vazquez-The-Practice-of-Polygamy-Legitimate-Free-Exercise-of-Religion-or-Legitimate-Public-Menace.pdf |access-date |
A claim was made that the law violated the constitutional prohibition on ''[[ex post facto]]'' laws; that is, polygamists were charged for polygamist marriages solemnized before the passage of the statute. A challenge to the statute was framed on these and other grounds. The Supreme Court ruled, in ''Murphy v. Ramsey'', {{ussc|114|15|1885}}, that the statute was not ''ex post facto'' because convicts were charged for their continued [[cohabitation]], not for the prior [[illegal marriage]].<ref>See also [https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D05E6DC1030E433A25757C2A9659C94649FD7CF "The Anti-Polygamy Law; Its Constitutionality Upheld by the Supreme Court"], ''The New York Times'', March 24, 1885, p. 3.</ref> Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for violating the [[Free Exercise Clause]].<ref>{{citation |first= Richard A. |last= Vazquez |date= Fall 2001 |title= The Practice of Polygamy: Legitimate Free Exercise of Religion or Legitimate Public Menace? Revising ''Reynolds'' in Light of Modern Constitutional Jurisprudence |journal= [[New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy]] |volume= 5 |issue= 1 |pages= 225–253 |publisher= [[New York University School of Law]] |url= http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Richard-A.-Vazquez-The-Practice-of-Polygamy-Legitimate-Free-Exercise-of-Religion-or-Legitimate-Public-Menace.pdf |access-date= 2014-02-24 |archive-date= 2014-02-28 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140228100713/http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Richard-A.-Vazquez-The-Practice-of-Polygamy-Legitimate-Free-Exercise-of-Religion-or-Legitimate-Public-Menace.pdf |url-status= dead }}</ref> |
||
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the doctrine of [[ |
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the doctrine of [[the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (LDS Church) on [[plural marriage]] without actually participating. It also provided for a five-man Utah Commission appointed by the president to supervise all aspects of the electoral process in [[Utah Territory]].<ref name=Uhtg/> All elected offices throughout the territory were vacated; the election board issued certificates to candidates who both denied a belief in polygamy and did not practice it; and new elections were held. |
||
Enforcement of the acts started in July 1887. The issue went to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in the case [[Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States]], which upheld the [[Edmunds–Tucker Act]] on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated the LDS Church. Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the [[1890 Manifesto]]. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said the church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."<ref>Jt. Res 11., 53d Cong., 1st Sess., 28 Stat. 980</ref> |
Enforcement of the acts started in July 1887. The issue went to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in the case ''[[Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States]]'', which upheld the [[Edmunds–Tucker Act]] on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated the LDS Church. Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the [[1890 Manifesto]]. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said the church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."<ref>Jt. Res 11., 53d Cong., 1st Sess., 28 Stat. 980</ref> |
||
==Convictions== |
==Convictions== |
||
Line 76: | Line 77: | ||
* [[Abraham H. Cannon]] — 1886 — a member of the [[First Council of the Seventy]] and son of apostle [[George Q. Cannon]]. Cannon was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1886 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which he served in full. In 1889 he became a church apostle.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} |
* [[Abraham H. Cannon]] — 1886 — a member of the [[First Council of the Seventy]] and son of apostle [[George Q. Cannon]]. Cannon was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1886 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which he served in full. In 1889 he became a church apostle.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} |
||
* [[David John (Mormon)|David John]] — 1887 — Provo stakeholder and Vice President of the [[Brigham Young University]] Board of Trustees. John married a second wife, Jane Cree, in 1865. He had nine children with Mary and 11 children with Jane. In 1887, he spent time in prison for violating the Edmunds Act. |
* [[David John (Mormon)|David John]] — 1887 — Provo stakeholder and Vice President of the [[Brigham Young University]] Board of Trustees. John married a second wife, Jane Cree, in 1865. He had nine children with Mary and 11 children with Jane. In 1887, he spent time in prison for violating the Edmunds Act. |
||
* [[George Q. Cannon]] — 1888 — a church apostle and former non-voting delegate for the [[Utah Territory]] in the United States Congress, before the passage of the Edmunds Act. Cannon surrendered himself to authorities and pled guilty at trial to a charge of unlawful cohabitation. As a result, Cannon served nearly six months in Utah's [[Sugar House Prison (Utah)|federal penitentiary]].<ref>{{citation |last= Cannon |first= Joseph A. |last2= Fish |first2= Rick |contribution-url= http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/CANNON_GEORGE.html |contribution= Cannon, George Q. |editor-last= Powell |editor-first= Allan Kent |year= 1994 |title= Utah History Encyclopedia |location= Salt Lake City, Utah |publisher= [[University of Utah Press]] |isbn= 0874804256 |oclc= 30473917 }}</ref> |
* [[George Q. Cannon]] — 1888 — a church apostle and former non-voting delegate for the [[Utah Territory]] in the United States Congress, before the passage of the Edmunds Act. Cannon surrendered himself to authorities and pled guilty at trial to a charge of unlawful cohabitation. As a result, Cannon served nearly six months in Utah's [[Sugar House Prison (Utah)|federal penitentiary]].<ref>{{citation |last= Cannon |first= Joseph A. |last2= Fish |first2= Rick |contribution-url= http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/CANNON_GEORGE.html |contribution= Cannon, George Q. |editor-last= Powell |editor-first= Allan Kent |year= 1994 |title= Utah History Encyclopedia |location= Salt Lake City, Utah |publisher= [[University of Utah Press]] |isbn= 0874804256 |oclc= 30473917 |access-date= 2013-10-30 |archive-date= 2017-01-13 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170113125552/http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/CANNON_GEORGE.html |url-status= dead }}</ref> |
||
* [[Heber J. Grant]] — 1899 — a church apostle at the time. Grant pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a $100 fine.<ref>''Salt Lake Daily Tribune'', 1899-09-09.</ref> Grant became president of the LDS Church in 1918. |
* [[Heber J. Grant]] — 1899 — a church apostle at the time. Grant pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation and paid a $100 fine.<ref>''Salt Lake Daily Tribune'', 1899-09-09.</ref> Grant became president of the LDS Church in 1918. |
||
* [[Joseph F. Smith]] — 1906 — LDS Church president. Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his lawful wife; he pled guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law.<ref>''Deseret Evening News'', November 23, 1906; ''Salt Lake Tribune'', November 24, 1906.</ref> |
* [[Joseph F. Smith]] — 1906 — LDS Church president. Smith was brought to trial on a charge of unlawful cohabitation with four women in addition to his lawful wife; he pled guilty and was fined $300, the maximum penalty then permitted under the law.<ref>''Deseret Evening News'', November 23, 1906; ''Salt Lake Tribune'', November 24, 1906.</ref> |
||
Line 97: | Line 98: | ||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
* {{citation |url= https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng |title= Gospel Topics: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage |work= churchofjesuschrist.org |publisher= LDS Church |access-date= 2014-10-22 }} |
* {{citation |url= https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng |title= Gospel Topics: The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage |work= churchofjesuschrist.org |publisher= LDS Church |access-date= 2014-10-22 }} |
||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29522 |title=Chester A. Arthur: "First Annual Message," December 6, 1881 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara}} |
* {{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29522 |title=Chester A. Arthur: "First Annual Message," December 6, 1881 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara |access-date=April 9, 2016 |archive-date=April 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424120851/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29522 |url-status=dead }} |
||
* {{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=68701 |title=Chester A. Arthur: "Special Message," April 3, 1882 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara}} |
* {{cite web |url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=68701 |title=Chester A. Arthur: "Special Message," April 3, 1882 |author1=Peters, Gerhard |author2=Woolley, John T |work=The American Presidency Project |publisher=University of California - Santa Barbara |access-date=April 9, 2016 |archive-date=April 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424113639/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=68701 |url-status=dead }} |
||
{{Chester A. Arthur|state=collapsed}} |
|||
[[Category:1882 in American law]] |
[[Category:1882 in American law]] |
||
[[Category:History of |
[[Category:March 1882 events]] |
||
[[Category:History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] |
|||
[[Category:Utah Territory]] |
[[Category:Utah Territory]] |
||
[[Category:United States law and polygamy in Mormonism]] |
[[Category:United States law and polygamy in Mormonism]] |
![]() | |
Other short titles | Anti-Plural Marriage Act of 1882 |
---|---|
Long title | An Act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes. |
Nicknames | Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 |
Enacted by | the 47th United States Congress |
Effective | March 22, 1882 |
Citations | |
Public law | 47-47 |
Statutes at Large | 22 Stat. 30b |
Legislative history | |
|
Mormonism and polygamy |
---|
![]()
A Mormon "Saint" and Wives by Charles Weitfle (ca.1878–1885)
|
Early Mormonism |
Antipolygamy laws |
Case law |
![]() |
|
The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882,[1] is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by President Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamyafelony in federal territories, punishable by "a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years".[2] The act is named for U.S. Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor),[3] thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred.[1] The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also made the offense of unlawful cohabitation much easier to prove than polygamy misdemeanor and made it illegal for polygamists or cohabitants to vote, hold public office, or serve on juries in federal territories.[4]
A claim was made that the law violated the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; that is, polygamists were charged for polygamist marriages solemnized before the passage of the statute. A challenge to the statute was framed on these and other grounds. The Supreme Court ruled, in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885), that the statute was not ex post facto because convicts were charged for their continued cohabitation, not for the prior illegal marriage.[5] Some modern scholars suggest the law may be unconstitutional for violating the Free Exercise Clause.[6]
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) on plural marriage without actually participating. It also provided for a five-man Utah Commission appointed by the president to supervise all aspects of the electoral process in Utah Territory.[4] All elected offices throughout the territory were vacated; the election board issued certificates to candidates who both denied a belief in polygamy and did not practice it; and new elections were held.
Enforcement of the acts started in July 1887. The issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, which upheld the Edmunds–Tucker Act on May 19, 1890. Among other things, the act disincorporated the LDS Church. Within five months, the LDS Church officially discontinued the practice of plural marriage with the 1890 Manifesto. On October 25, 1893, a congressional resolution authorized the release of assets seized from the LDS Church because, "said the church has discontinued the practice of polygamy and no longer encourages or gives countenance to any manner of practices in violation of law, or contrary to good morals or public policy."[7]
More than 1,300 men were imprisoned under the terms of the Edmunds Act.[1] It appears that women were not prosecuted, being seen as victims of the practice and not willing participants, although a number refused to testify against their husbands and some were jailed for their refusal.[3]