of said Young, while his first and only lawful wife, as recognized by our laws, was still living. The matter was referred to the Attorney-General. To the general subject the President calls the attention of Congress. I have taken pains to get accurate information in this particular case from the official records of the court, and I find the facts to be these: On the 28th of July, 1873, Ann Eliza Young filed a bill in the United States district court of the Territory, claiming that she and the defendant, Brigham Young, intermarried on the 6th day of April, 1868; that she was at the time twenty-five (25) years of age and the mother of two children by a former marriage: that for about a year after "he co-habited with her and acted toward her with some degree of kindness;" that after that he treated her with cruelty and neglect, ending in desertion; that $20,000 is a reasonable sum to be paid her counsel, and $1,000 a month for her own expenses. She therefore prays that $1,000 a month be allowed her during the pending of the suit, to commence from the date of the filing of the bill, and that her counsel be paid "a preliminary fee of not less than $6,000, besides $14,000 more at the end of the suit," and also that the defendant "be ordered to pay the clerk of the court such sum as may be necessary to defray the legal costs and expenses of the suit;" and that the defendant be decreed to support her and her said children by a former marriage, &c. There is no allegation in the bill that the plaintiff was ever "lawfully" married to the defendant. THE ANSWER. On the 25th of August, 1874, the defendant filed his answer, denying his marriage, and denying that the plaintiff was ever his wife; averring, also, that she was the wife of James T. Dee; affirming, likewise, that on the 10th of January, 1834, at Kirkland, in the State of Ohio, he was lawfully married to Mary Ann Angell, who is now his lawful wife and still living, and that the plaintiff well knew the fact on the 6th day of April, 1868, when she claimed to have been married to the plaintiff, and long prior thereto. He claims, however, that on the 6th of April, 1868, he and the complainant were members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and that such might "enter into plural or celestial marriages;" that on the day last mentioned, his lawful wife being still living and undivorced, and the fact being well known to the complainant, he and the complainant, according to the belief of the Church, entered into a celestial, plural, or polygamous marriage. The defendant denies all cruelty, &c. On the 25th of February, 1875, Judge McKean ordered that $500 a month be paid as alimony, pendente lite, since the filing of the bill, then amounting to $9,500, and a counsel-fee of $3,000 to Messrs. Tilford, Hogan & McBride, attorneys for the plaintiff'; payment to be made within ten days. On the 10th of March, 1875, Judge McKean ordered the arrest of Brigham Young for not complying with the order to pay the said attorneys $3,000. On the 11th of the same month, the same judge adjudged the defendant in contempt for not paying the $3,000, fined him $25, and ordered his imprisonment for a day. I am advised that the money was then paid. On the 27th of March, 1875, application was made before Chief-Justice Lowe to compel the payment of the $9,500, accrued alimony. An order to show cause was granted. On the return of the order, Chief-Justice Lowe, on the 10th day of May, 1875, denied the motion for an attachment, and discharged the rule to show cause. On the 15th day of July, 1875, the chief justice made an order striking out certain portions of the answer, and gave leave to amend. On the 24th of the same month an amended answer was filed, specifically denying the alleged marriage, and denying that the plaintiff was ever the defendant's wife, but re-affirming that she was the wife of James T. Dee, who is still living, and that she is now the lawful wife of said Dee; re-asserting also that he was lawfully married to Mary Ann Angell in 1834, at Kirkland, in the State of Ohio, and that the said Mary Ann is still living and his lawful wife. Chief Justice Lowe resigned in August last, about the time of the filing of this amended answer. On the 18th day of October last, Judge Boreman issued an order commanding the defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in not obeying the order of Judge McKean to pay $9,500 temporary alimony. In reply to the order the defendant answered, setting up the orders of Chief Justice Lowe of April 17th and May 10th, 1875, denying the motion for attachment and discharging the rule to show cause. But on the 29th of October, 1875, Judge Boreman adjudged Brigham Young guilty of contempt in not paying $9,500 temporary alimony as orig inally ordered, and directed that said Young be imprisoned until he shall have paid the sum with costs. In obedience to said order Young was taken into custody by the marshal. At this stage complaint was made to the President. I have just learned by telegraph that Judge White, the newly-appointed chief-justice of Utah, has released the defendant from imprisonment. It is superfluous to comment upon the legal confusion and inconceivable mischief which must follow the sanction of polygamous marriages by the courts of the United States. If the nineteenth concubine of a man having a lawful wife living, is to be treated by the courts as also a lawful wife for the purpose of giving her alimony and counsel fees, pendente lite, then the offspring of such illicit intercourse must be regarded as legitimate for the same time, and the courts of the United States will thus give countenance to a social system corrupting and degrading, abhorrent to the principles of the Christian religion, and never yet permitted by any Christian nation. It is for Congress to deal with this question, and to decide whether much delay will not increase the difficulties. PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE HANDS OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, CLERKS, MARSHALS, AND OFFICERS OF THE COURTS. I find that each year, in every part of the United States where courts are held, property is purchased by this Department for the use of the various offices and court-rooms, which in the aggregate amounts to a large sum. The articles are safes, desks, tables, chairs, book and paper cases, carpets, sofas, lounges, stoves, fire utensils, &c. No return of these goods is ever made to this Department, and what becomes of them when the various offices change hands we have no record. I suggest that each officer, for whom any kind of property is purchased with the funds of this Department, be required by law to return. to the Department, on the last days of June and December of each year, a full inventory of all such property in his possession, and that every such officer upon taking possession of his office shall give full account of all the property turned over to him by his predecessor, or received by him in any manner upon entering upon his official term. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. The number of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court at its October term, 1874, in which the Government was interested was fifty. Of these, thirty-two were decided in favor of the Government, and thirteen against it. Five cases were dismissed, in four of which the Government was the appellant or plaintiff in error; two of the four being thus disposed of with the consent of my predecessor. The number of Government cases upon the docket at the commencement of the December term, 1875, was eighty-one. THE COURT OF CLAIMS. It seems appropriate to call the attention of Congress to the great importance of the business of this court. I have caused to be prepared, with considerable labor and some diffi culty, a tabular statement of the causes heretofore disposed of, and also of those now pending in the court, beginning with its earliest organization. (See Table No. 1.) It will be seen, even leaving out the cases in which the printed papers have not yet been received, that the claims pending amount to the large sum of $53,630,249.31; that within the last four years the judg ments rendered in this court against the United States in favor of claimants amount to the sum of $11,553,047.06; that of the 3,458 causes disposed of since 1863, 503 were decided in favor of the Govern ment, and 2,955 were decided in favor of the claimants; that last year judgments were rendered against the Government for $2,416,625.71, and that up to the 1st of December, of the present year, for a still larger sum, reaching $2,991,021.19. From the length of time which some of these cases have been pending, we might infer that they had been abandoned, but we find occasionally that a part of them are revived, and what ones are really aban doned we are not able to determine. Time does not seem to be an element which weakens the chances of success against the Government, and doubtful testimony is somehow obtained by claimants, which from lapse of time the Government cannot find witnesses to rebut. We have strong reasons to believe that in certain cotton cases, involving very large amounts, proofs have been given of the taking of the cotton by our troops which was never taken at all, and which fact could have been proven at an earlier date, before the Union soldiers were widely scattered and difficult to find. It is much more easy for the claimant to find witnesses to support his claim than it is for the Government to find witnesses to resist it, and the court are embarrassed in getting at the truth by the fact that the testimony is all taken by depositions, generally at a great distance from Washington, and never in presence of the court; it is mostly taken in such places and attended with such delay and waste of time as to make it difficult for the Government to be represented by counsel of such fidelity and skill as the cross-examination of the witnesses requires. In most cases the claimant's testimony is not closed for many years after the transactions complained of, when many important witnesses for the Government are dispersed or dead. When proofs are taken in deposi tions without able counsel to conduct the cross-examination, the false reads just as well as the true, and the court are compelled to decide upon the evidence before it. I have every reason to commend the industry and fidelity of this tribunal; but when testimony is thus prepared, no vigilance of the court can protect the Government against legal proof of claims which never existed and of values of property entirely fanciful. It is impossible that counsel who have never studied the cases and have had no preparation through knowledge of the exact questions at issue, can safely attend to the taking of the depositions. I, therefore, propose that in general such services be rendered by those belonging to this Department who understand the cases. This course will save much in counsel fees, and secure very great advantages to the Government besides. To accomplish this needs no additional appropriation for the present year, and will not be likely in future to require any greater sum. I suggest also that such legislation be had as will enable the court, aided by the Attorney-General, to increase the safeguards against improper testimony, by devising a different mode of taking it, and to force the old cases to an early trial or require them to be dismissed without the power of restoration. To these ends I propose, after consultation with the court, to draught a bill and submit it to the present Congress. CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. Exhibits A, B, and C show the business of the circuit and district courts of the United States in the, several judicial districts during the last fiscal year. Exhibit A is a statement of the civil suits to which the United States was a party; Exhibit B, of the criminal prosecutions; and Exhibit C shows the number of civil suits to which the United States was not a party, commenced and terminated during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875. I have been unable to obtain full and complete returns for these exhibits from all the judicial districts; the United States attorneys, who were called upon for the information required for them, having in some instances failed to procure it from the clerks of the courts upon whom they relied for it, the clerks being under no legal obligation to furnish it. APPROPRIATIONS. A general statement of appropriations placed under the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875. Salaries and expenses, Metropolitan police: Appropriation, act June 23, 1874 Amount expended..... Defending suits and claims for seizure of captured or abandoned $207,530 00 207, 530 00 30,000 00 26,000 00 4,000 00 10, 000 00 8,410 15 Balance Punishing violations of intercourse-acts and frauds: Appropriation, act June 23, 1874.... Amount expended...... Balance...... Penitentiary building at Steilacoom, Washington Territory: Appropriation, act June 23, 1874..... Amount expended.... Balance Expenses of United States courts: Appropriation, act June 23, 1874..... Total Amount expended... Balance.... Court-house, Washington, D. C. : Appropriation, act June 23, 1874.. 1,589 85 7,271 00 6, 136 83 1, 134 17 3, 000, 000 00 22,155 00 3,022, 155 00 2,927, 458 39 94, 696 61 3,000 00 Amount expended........... 3,000 00 Publishing opinions of Attorneys-General : Appropriation, act of July 23, 1874..... 1,000 00 Amount expended...... 1,000 00 Current expenses, reform-school of the District of Columbia: Appropriation, act June 23, 1874.... 10,000 00 Amount expended..... 10,000 00 Buildings and grounds, reform-school of the District of Columbia: |