New-York tribune., 1885-03-24
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
TIE SUPERVISION OF ELECTIONS IN UTAH AND
THE RIGHTS OF MoRMoNs.


TIE SUPERVISION OF ELECTIONS IN UTAH AND
THE RIGHTS OF MoRMoNs.
WASHINGTON March ga decision was
rendered by the Supreme Court Of the United States to-
day In the series OF FIVE known as the poygany
SUITS which were brought by certain Morlnons OF Utah
for the purpose Of getting judicial decision as 10 the
power of Board of Commis oners or eanvassers a
pointed under the so-caed Edmunds act OF March ~
1882 to supervise elections the Territory. The
painants appellants in these Jesse j. Muir
phy Mary Ann NJ Pratt Mildred 4. and Alfred Randall
Ellen c. and Hiram u. Cawson and James Nj. Barlow
The defendants and appellees are Alexander Ramsey
and ethers constituting the Federal Board OF Coul7-
souers and certain registration officers appointed by
them The principal question raised by the SUITS II
whether the Board of Commissioners appointed uhuer
the Edrnunds had the power to prescribe as a con-
aIon of the registration of discriminating test
oath reauirng the applicant for registration 10 swear
uf mani that he is not bigamst or poly samlst ana
does not live or cohabit with than one woman In
the marriage relation; III woman that she IS not
the wife of polygamst and has not entered INTO any
relation with any in violation or the laws OF the
United states concerning polygamy bigamy. This
Court holds the rules promulgated by the Board
rescriidnp the form of oath to exaced Of Of
ferng TO register as voters and which constitute the
directions under which IL is alleged the registration Of
feers acted n the here complained Of were WITH
out force and that effect can be given to them IL
cannot be alleged" the Court holds, that they had the
tis registration officers were not bound nor a
thorzed TO obey them and il they did they did 1t in
their own wrong There no relation, between the
Board and the officers appointed By them, OF principal
and agent SO az to make the members OF the former
liable for what the latter may have ilegaiy done nuer
their Instructions and therefore connection IN law
exists between Of the Board as charged and the
wrongs complained Of II II be supposed that the Board
had the power which 1t they claimed and exer-
cised of putting the form of rules FOR the govern
ent Of the registration officers their Interpretation OF
the law that way published erroneous and Illegal re-
strctIons upon the right OF suffrage in the Territory
such acts OF administration we're not ministerial ana
cannot made the ground Of action They wond be OF
that which involve the exercise OF Judgment and
discretion in public officers, and which, when er-
roneous cannot furnish OF action FOR damages.
either therefore the Judgment in favor OF the
Board OF Commissioners In the Court below rightly
rendered.
With regard to the power and responsibility Of the
registration officers the Court holds that they were
merely ministerial officers and II they deprived the com
panans Of their right TO be registered voters In vo-
lation OF law, they responsible in action for dam
ages The Court then takes up and examines the cases
separately and holds that the compainants Mary Ann
Pratt and Mildred r. Randall, clearly deprived OF
their right OF registration without authority of law,
by their allegations they exclude themselves from
the dlsquaihca of act Of 1882 Ellen G.
son. Jesse j. Murphy end James NJ Rarlow the other
hand the Court holds included in the disqualified
tons OF the act and had right to registration In
reaching these conclusions the Court In its opinion,
makes an elaborate review OF the Of 1882 FOR the
purpose OF giving construction OF its provis-
Ions and OF showing how they apply 10 the present
cases BY act the Court holds. is made the duty
OF registration officers to see that persons Offering to
register free from the dsqual caons defined there
In doing they required 10 exercise diligence
aud good faith 10 their inquiries ana are responsible In
or maliciously. In the or Mary Ann Pratt aud
Mildred Randall, abeye referred TO- the allegations Of
he
legally entitled 10 be registered voters, but declare
that the refusal OF the regslraon officers 10 admit
them 70 the list wrongful and malicious. The da-
urrers admit the thus stated, and should there
fore have been oyerruied. .r
in conclusion Justice Matthews. who delivers the
opinion court, with reference TO the const
nationality OF above mentioned act N Counsel for
the appellants Ia argument seemed 70 question the con-
stutona power OF Congress- 10 pass the act OF March
% 1882 so far abrdges the rights or electors In
the Territory previous laws But that question is
we think, no longer open 70 oscnsson on ~ mas passed
people OF United states as sovereign owners OF tue
National Territories have supreme power over them ana
their Inhabitants. In the exercise OF tnis sovereign 40
innon they represented by the Government OF the
United States TO whom all the powers OF GoNerntnent
over that subject haue delegated subject only TO
necessarily implied IN its terms or In the purposes
and objects OF power ITSELF In ordainng govern.
1nelt for the Territories and the people who iDhabt
them ali the discretion which belongs 10 legislative
vested In Congress- and that extends Deyonu
sny controversy determining by law from time 10 time
that form OF the local government Ia particular terri
and the quafcatOnsOf those who shall administer
It. II with Congress- 20 say whether, In gwen
any Of the people resident Ia the Territory shall par
cipase the election of its officers on the making or Its
laws and, therefore, IL take from them any ght OF
suffrage IL may preyiou'y have conferred OF any Time
n0flfy or abridge II as II may deem eIpedent .
The persona civil rights OF the inhabitants OF the
terorcs secnred them, TO all other citizens,
by the principles constitutional liberty which restrain
oil the agencies of government and National their
political rights franchises which they hold ss pryi