The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-23


of the United States of six months
residence in the Territory have a
voting residence in the Territory
| Section 43 (section l of the act of
| 1870 provides that "every woman
Of the age of q years Who has re-
sided in this Territory SIX months
next preceding any general OF
Especial election, born or naturalized
IN the United States, or who is the
WIFE widow or the daughter of a
native born or naturalized citizen
of the United States. shall be en-
titled to vote at any election in this
Territory"
Section of the act of 1870 mot
numbered IS a section Of the Com
piled Laws repeats all laws and
paris OF laws conflicting with sec
ton 43. Section 43 differs
from section 40 to the extent OF con-
feTring tie elective franchise upon
the fema'eS therein described, who
ha resided III this Territory six
months, tut no further. The two
sections read together disconnected
with section Il, permit the male
citizens therein described and the
female therein described, who have
been residents Of the Territory six
months, to VOTE, but when read
with reference to and qualified by
section AZ, none of the persons de-
scribed in either section can vote
unless they are taxpayers.
The provisions that the person
must live in the Territory six
months before he or she can vote is
very far short from beingrepugnant
or inconsistent with the other pro-
vision that such person must be a
taxpayer before possessing a voting
residence.
a provision comforting the cleo
tive franchise upon females in the
terms Of section 43 has nothing in
it inconsistent with d provision in
the general statutes of the Terri
tory, that no person shall have a
voting residence unless he is a tax
payer. | End nothing in section 43
that In the least lnterferes, con-
fiicts or is inconsistent with tie full
and entire force of section AZ, that
all voters must be taxpayers. AS a
general rule it may safely be said
that subsequent statute Will not
repeal former one, if they can both
reasonably stand together, and that
repeal by implication is not
favored.
When acts can be harmOniZed by
fair and liberal construction it
must be done, and if possible to re-
cOncile the acts, it will be done. If
Two statutes on the same subject
can stand together without destroy
INC the evident intent and meaning
of ths. later one, there will be no
repeal. To repeal statute by i'm
phcation there must be such posi-
tive repugnance between the pro-
visions OF the new and the old that
they cannot stand together. OF be
consistently reconciled. Potter
Dwarris, on statutes, 154; Sedgwick
on constructions of statutory and
constitutional law, Is and note; Nc
Coll as. Smith, Black 459.
am OF the opinion that the act
of 1870 (if not inconsistent with the
acts of CongreSs) can stand in full
force not inconsistent with Or repug-
nank to the taX-paying provision OF
1859, and thus females and males
have the same and equal rights to
the elective franchise under the
law. Any other construction Of the
statutes that would give one class
of persons the right of voting upon
easier and different terms than those
given to another class, would make
an inequality in the laws, Odious to
every sense Of justice, and to every
principle Of republican government
Such statutes would be monstr0uS
and an Offensa to government OF
equal and just laws.
IElJUdge Emerson in Lyman CS Mar
tin says: call regulations upon that
Subject (the elective franchise must
be reasonable, uniform and I'M
partial" "any provisions which
should impose upon a particular
class Of citizens, conditions and re.
Iquirements not required of al
others is void"
The act Of 1870 must have one Of
| these effects; 1st, it must repeal thS
entire provision requiring taXpaying
qualifications, and permit all per
sons otherwise qualified to vote: or
I'd, it must repeal in part the tax
lpaying clause, leaving it in force az
to males, and not in force as Il
females, requiring male voters tC
pay taxes and exempting female
voters from the tax-paying burdens
or, Sd, the tax-paying qualifications
stands good, in full force, and ap
plies equally to both male and fe.
male voters.
l believe the latter is the true and
lust construction of the law, and as
the applicant has not shown herself
in any way to be a taxpayer, she is
not a voter under the statutes OF
this Territory, and not being a voter
has no legal right to a writ of man
dalnus compelling the respondent to
register her as a voter. The writ is
refused.
STEPHEN 2. TWIss, Judge.
GIBSON CLARK,
ZERA SNOW,
Attorneys for petitioner.
PRESLEY DENNEY,
Attorney for respondent.
| Ca+icfooA;O,, FO,. H.,