The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-09-30
SALT LAKE DAILY HERALD THURSDAY MORNING. SEPTEMBER 80

mandamus in q case Of this kind;
would subject persons to g possio
loss OF right without any opportunii
"a of securing redress. and Wishor
- any possible chance to maintAi
the rights possessed By them
The main question is. Are women
in this territory, under any circum
% stances, entitled to voter The terri
torial legislature has the express al
thority to prescribe the qualification
Of voters. He read from the Organic
10 Act, and argued that il was pre-
scribed that only males should b
allowed to vote at the first election il
the territory, but that for all subse
Q quent elections the legislature shoul5
prescribe the qualifications. subject t
certain regulations. namely: citizens
lof age Gnd those who have declared
o their intention to become citizens
This gives full power to specify The
qualifications OF voters to the Lsgisls-
ture. The Organic Act does not give
the right to vote to any person. but
leaves that to the regulation of the
Legislature, subject only to the pro-
: visions stated. The Constitution
: does not confer the right te vote upon
{ any person. The law makes woman
citizen az well as q man. The
local Legislature has the right 10 say
women ehail not vote, and l put it to
she court II the came power may not
be exercised in favor of women. The
Legislature has passed laws allo wing
women TO vote, and | understand it
10 be held that because the quAlifics
tions are unequal the law is void. The
speaker here called attention to the
action of the Supreme Court in the
Iooele mandsmus case. The Legis-
latUre had right to make males be
taxpayers before they could vote; it
had a right TO take that provision
away. In 1870 the Legislature
passed another law making women
voters and stated that All laws incon-
sistent with this act were repealed,
and if there is an inconsistency in
making male voters taxpayers and
weman not, then the taxpaying
qualification must be invalid; 90 far
as the former act was inconsistent
with the latter. all the inconsistencies
in the older act must be expuDgea
and the two stand together. The
qualifications for voters are found in
the old act, and ali voters must there
find the qualifications required of
them. This party comes into court
and prognoIticates that be is to be
injured and asks the names OF
persons to be stricken from the list
He has received no injury go far; his
right must have been violated before
be can have redress. He has re-
ceived DO Ecar. and it does not appear
that he is party benedciAlly Affected |
and therefor he has no right to apply |
for this writ. Here the court an
nounced that the speaker had ex-
hausted bis time, and be ceased.
JUDGE sUTHRRLAND's ARGUMENT.
Judge Sutherland arose to reply:
There are two points only in the de-
murrer; first, that this court has no
Jurisdiction to issue 4 mandamus ex
cept in Feed OF its appellate juri.dic-
tion. Time ie too short to argue this
matter. This court has given some
opinions on the subject, and as in the
passage OF acts by the Legislature the
last is the law, so it should be held
with the opinions OF this court, As
the c3ur: has held that it had iuris-
dictlon in q prior case, be said he
would rest upon it. The second point
is that complaint or affidavit did not
state facts sufficient to constitute
a cause OF action. We claim that
the act giving the right OF suffrage to
women and the Repatriation Act, so
far SO it relates 10 these persons. are
void. II large number OF persons
are put on the list without the au-
thorily OF law. it il the duty OF the
registrar to strike the names of, ss it
was MS duty to refrain from putting
them on. II, under color OF office,
an officer does an act which he has
no authority to do, mandamus will
lie to compel him to undo it.
l shall assume not only /,
that the court has Jurisdiction.
but if there is no law authorizing the
registrar TO place the names OF
females upon the list, this writ lies
to compel him to strike of all their
names. Ibis brings me to the ques-
ton as to whether women in this ter
ritoIy have right to vote. We deny
the validity OF the act giving women
the right to vote. Here be referred
to the decision OF ths Supreme Court
in the Tooele mandamus case.
Judge Emerson delivered the opinion
of the msjority, and stated that the
laws regulating the elective franchise
must be reasonable, impartial spd
uniform. Tbs question as 20 what
per,ons have the right to vote Is not
specified in the RegistI aliou Act, snd
the qualifications OF voters NUT be
found 10 acts antecedent TO the Regis
tration Act. Under the rule that all
qualifications, Ito which the Supreme
Court agrees, Unjust be reasonable, i'm
partial and uniform, it must be de-
cided who has the right to vote. The
act OF 1859 provides that no person
shall be allowed to vote unless he Is q
male and q taxpayer, and has some
other qualifications therein men
toned. All other persons are ex-
cluded from voting. In 1870 another
act. which does not relate to the pre-
vious act, was passed. That provides
that every woman 81 years OF age
native born, or naturallzed, or the
vile, widow or daughter OF a native
born or naturalized citizen. shAll be
voter. They are not required to be
taxpayers. The qusliicstiOns meu-
toned as emitting a woman to vote
are different from those allowing men
to vote; one is required to be tax
payer and the other is not. 1t is con
ceded that all election lava must be
reasonable, impartial and uniform,
and therefore these acts cannot CO.
exist and operate together, because
they are at variance, snd are not
reasonable, impartial and uniform.
1t requires no argument to show that
one OF them is not valid within the
test, which has received the sanction
of this court. Now which enc must
give Wsy2 The act of 1859 prohibits
any male from voting unless he is 6.
citizen and a taxpayer; is not that act
still in lorce7 In the act OF 1870 10
there a word that can in any way be
construed as giving men the right to
vote on any other tsrms7 There is not