The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-09-15

( DIOF l6LOLls ~ ny DCCduSC LttE llCA
section was expressly confined {,
subsequent elections, namely: ga
all subsequent elections however
in any territory hereafter organized
| by Congress, as well as at all elec
tons in territories already organ
lied, the qualifications Of voters anC
iof holding Office shall be such a
may be prescribed by the Legisla
tive Assembly of each territory
IsubjeCt, nevertheless, to the follow
/ ing restrictions on the power OF tht
Legislative Assembly, namely. -
I9nd the balance of the section con
tains an enumeration Of certain p0F'
sons that shall not be excluded, and
Jail persons that shall be excluded
ls0 that the whole section relates
necessarily and expressly ana eX.
/ cIusively Co subsequent elections.
There was nothing IL thaC SecIloI
which qualified the right OF any PER
| son named in section 1883 10 vote
at the fist election, anu YET III
IOrGer TO give that clause eHect-
There was something III the
fsec. ion which was affected by
the provisions following, or other
wise that clause was meaning
less. Now. what was it? 1t Was
Ithe right Cd vote and hold Office II
Ith5 territory without regard TO the
elections. or at subsequent eiectl rs ;
the right Of male citizens Il years
Of age ID vote and hUd Office at sub
seoUent elections. The light Of
those persons to vote was the eX-
elusive subject OF "tha next sec
ton LtfoiloWed, therefore, neceS-
.sarily, with mathematical Ger
ia nty. that when the Legisla-
tive Assembly exr rcised the power
by section 1850, it legiSlated in 3
manner characterized by the word
elimination, and by way of qualify
ing the right Of voting and holding
Office mentioned in section 1859 ;
therefore both sections related to the
same persons, the same voters, the
same candidates for holding office,
male citizens q years Of age. He
c0ntended (2)-and this point was
entirely independent Of the other
that it was not the intention Of Con-
gress in passing the Organic Act,
and in passing the acts from which
he had quoted, to authorize the
Legislative Assembly TO grant the
elective franchise to females. That
intention was very fOrcibIy sug-
gested by section 1859, which
was made applicable to all
Territories. Congress expressly
confined the elective franchise TO
male citizens over 81 years of age,
May we not say that when Con
gress passed these acts it did not in
tend to confer the right 20 vote to
women. They have never given
the right to women TO vote, and in
providing for the first election they
gave that right to male citizens ever
u Years Of age only.
Even were it the intention TO
give the right To vote to women, IL
was not the intention 10 give this
privilege to different classes of
voters on different terms. 1t is
provided that males only shall hold
office. The proviso in the statutes
is that male citizens only shall hold
Office. The word male remains On
the statute, and was not stricken
out. 1t cannot be stricken out by
implication, and if il were stricken
out they would have given females
4 privilege which evidently they
did not intend TO give them 1t did
not apply to females nor give the
right TO hold Office to women. 1t is
evident the acts of Congress did
not intend TO give 70 terri
tOriaI legislatures the right
to make individi0us distinctions
as to voters; and there Is no reason
10 suppose that Congress intended
that legislatures should be allowed
to make conditions as TO citizenship
which we're not uniform; it did not
intend that any species Of favOrlt-
ism should be exercised for any
class. On this point he quoted au-
thoTities in support Of the position
he had maintained. The courts are
not to adopt the construction Of a
statute that viii lead 20 absurd dis
or TO injustice. If the
Legislature had the right To distin-
guIsh between males and females,
they can make distinctions between
male voters. They can say that no
person shall vote unless ne is a
member Of the church; they can
make one Iule for MOrmODs and
another for GentileS, ana grant the
right to vote to one citizen on more
favorable terms than 20 another.
If women may vote without being
taxpayers, while men must be tax
payers. l say there Is no logical
stopping place this side the con-
cluSi0n that distinctions may be
made among males.
sTEe act of 1870 was a special
act, and it does not apply to the sub
ject of the act Of 1859, except in
q general way; the former relates to
females the latter to males, and
therefore is on Q different subject.
Hence the repeal by implication
cannot hold good in tais case Tor
the reason that the act relates 10
different subjects. Here again au-
thOrities were quoted III support Of
the position taken. Both these
laws have been III operation since
1870, and the legislature keeps up
the validity of Goth acts by the reg
istTatiOn act Of 1878. v herein a male,
in order 20 be listed, must be a tax
paver. while a female can be listed
,,,,t ct4ah conditions Tho OlthC