The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-09-30

II Special legislation. A connicb OF prii
le ciple between two acts does not maE
y one repeal the other by implication
It Women are not subject 10 chsllens
D because they are Dot t8xpayeTf; me
/. are.
J, JUDGE M'BRIDs's ARGUMENT.
I Judge Mcbride followed Judg
Sutherland. He passed briefly ere
some of the points and said we Ter
here 10 know who should exercise To
. right to vote. The Registration AC
provides that the registrar shall as
certain who are entitled TO vote, ani
erase from the lists sll persons wnI
are not entitled to vote; and it
under this provision that the subiec
Is brought up tonight. There is nj
Question but the Legislature had th'
power 10 pses the act OF 1859. Tha
was the general Law. In 1870 thI
act vas passed giving women the
right to vote. It did not require 6
woman TO be q resident 10 any
county or precinct, and she could DC
taken to any county in the territery
and there cast her vote. Under thit
act q favored class are allowed to
vote; the Organic Act provides that 3
person, TO become q voter. must be
a citizen, but the act OF 1870 does not
make it necessary for a woman 70 be
= citizen OF the United States.
Nothing is clearer than that
this portion OF the act OF
the Legislature was intended
TO introduce to the ballot box
a class who do no. come within
the provision oil the Organic Act. The
act of 1870 does not require her TO be
q years of age; she need only be =
vile, widow or daughter OF citizen.
[ hold that the whole second section
of the Law is in the teeth of the re-
quirement of the Organic Act. He
referred also to The tax qualification
a. regards the different sexes. A
general law is never modified by
special law, although the latter may
refer to branch of the former. We
have every evidence that il never was
the intention OF the Legislature to
repeal the tex qualification OF men or
to apply it to women. Hence i. is
special legislation, and if there be q
lack of uniformity that which creates
the distinction must always 60.
MIR. SHOWS ARGUMENT.
TIE concluding argument was
made BY Zara Snow, Esq., he having
but fifteen minutes. The applicant
claimed the writ under the theory
that the Registration Act made it the
duty OF the registrar to strike from
the registry lists the names of ell
persons who were not lawful voters.
The only provision for such action by
him ia found in that section OF the
act which provides revision and
erasure in cases where q person be-
comes unqualified to vote in q
particular precinct, by reason of
death, removal or similar OCCUR
rences. In all other cases of i'm
proper registration, section 8 of the
act RENTS the remedy to The county
clerk and to the justices OF the peace.
Hence, as this duty rests in some
person other than the registrar, the
writ will not lie. Again, there was
no injury, and there can. therefore,
be no redress. Counsel on the other
side assume that all persons regis
tered are entitled to vote. This ia not
the law; all legal voters must register,
but it does net follow that all persons
registered are legal voters. They
attack the right OF women to vote, az
understand it, on three grounds;
first. that there is discrimination as
10 residence; second, that the act
the franchise is broad
enough to give 1t 10 women other
than citizens; third, discrimination as
70 the taxpayiDg qualification. The
irst is untrue; 30 the second, for the
act was only intended to apply to a
wife, widow or daughter, who in her
sell as a rightful citizen; but even if
ihese constructions of the act be COZ
rect. the mere fact that the franchise
was extended TO aliens as we'll as Off
Eeps, would not vitiute the act,
but would only render void
that portion which did ex-
END the franchise to aliens.
AZ to the discrimination regarding
he tax qualification, it has been de
cidsd in the Tooele mandamus case
hat the law eniranchisipg women,
BY implication, repesls the tax quail
icaIion in the act OF 1859; and If that
were not sustained, then
here areno voters except women, be.
cause il is conceded that the Legisla.
lure has power to determine What
citizens shall or shsll not vote. The
opposing counsel treated the act Of
1859 as a constitutional provision,
not IS an act OF a Legislature; il was
D thing Of the kind. aud vas no n ore
general than the act .hey are Low
attacking. The old act wss sssed
by power which had absolute su-
tnofily to change it and had absolute
authority to declare that women only
should be voters. This court has
already held that women have Alright
to register under the Registry Act, IN
Lyman Us. Martin, and on this decision
We rely. 1t has been shown that Mr..
Burton has no authority to erase
these names, and therefore the writ
against him cannot lie; while the pc |
titioner has other legal and efficient
By challenge OF the registIa
ton and challenge at the polls on the
day of election. TIE petitioner seeks
by this writ to have deslAred an
act of the Legislature void and to dis
franchise 10000 women whom the
Law Gays shall be voters. without Civ
ing her her day In court, or any
opportunity TO be heard. In this case
the registrar represents himself and
not the voters. This We claim the
court cannot do in this proceeding.
The object Of the Registry Act in
allowing challenge to the registrs-
ton, was to give an opportunity both
to the challenger and the challenged
to be hesrd. and this remedy must be
pursued. Here the court announced
that the time for arguments had
closed, and Mr.. Snow stopped.
no DECISION.
At the conclusion of the arguments
tie judges conferred together for q
few moments and then, without rem
deriDg decision, adjourned the court
until 2 O'Clock on Thursday afternoon.
The decision will tnen be delivered,
and as the judges discussed
the matter last night they have