Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-09-07
DIsFRANCHISEMENT FOR OPIN'
IONS SAKE.

reasons for the abridgement OF the cleo
tive franchise in Utah, this one:
"If it is a wrong principle TO deny man
in Utah the privilege OF voting, 1t IS quite as
much a grievance to take from him the
privilege of sitting on juries."
Surely such reason is very strange
indeed, and if it be good reason for de-
priving a man OF the elective franchise
because he cannot sit on a jury in certain
cases, land his fitness for the jury box Is
determined by examination in open court
and not elsewhere because his opinions
disqualify him, then it must follow that
all men who for any reason are disquall-
fed to sit on jury in certain cases
should be disfranchised. That man is
a believer in polygamy and that it is
right, is good reason for disqualfiylng
him to sit on polygamy cases; but his
disqualification in polygamy cases does
not extend to other cases. In Utah, for
certain crimes the law inflicts the death
penalty, and a man who has any con-
scientious- -scruples against finding YER
dict where the penalty is death is not
allowed to sit on the jury when verdict
of guilty may be followed by sentence
of death. Yet, on the theory above
quoted, this same man should be denied
the elective franchise. What is the
ground for refusing such man the right
to sit on jury in capital cases? 1t is
this: He thinks the law both harsh and
cruel, and more than likely holds the
opinion that society has no right to put. a
man to death for any crime. He would
hold, and hold rightly, that when
society has such control of an offender
against its laws as to prevent the
possibility of his doing it any further
harm it is in no further danger.
Here is a man whose opinions are
clearly opposed to the law OF capital
punishment and who is denied the right
to sit on the jury in certain cases on
account of such opinions, but still society
has never yet gone so far as to say
that such man should be deprived
of the elective franchise. The Civil
Code of Utah allows challenges for
cause upon seven different grounds, while
the Criminal Code allows challenges for
general cause on three grounds; it allows
them on nine particular causes for inn
piled bias, and gives the right once for
equitable bias. In capital cases the de-
fendant is allowed fifteen peremptory
challenges, and three peremptory chal-
lenges in all other criminal cases.
On the theory that eff it is wrong prin
ciple to deny man the privilege of
voting, it is quite as much a grievance to
take from him the privilege of sitting on
juries," any citizen whose name happens
to be placed upon the jury list should
have his name stricken off the voting list
if he is rejected as juror in a civil case
for any of the seven causes OF challenge
allowed, and likewise if he cannot run
the gauntlet of the ten causes OF challenge
in criminal cases. Such is the logical
result of the Tribatne'S test But this is
not the worst In capital cases fifteen
jurors may be rejected for no other reason
than captiousness on the part Of the de-
fendant, and because Of this captiousness
they should be denied the exercise of the
elective franchise, if the test as to a
mans fitness to sit on jury is to be the
test of his fitness to exercise the elective
franchise. Immediately following the
Tribune has this: 'fWith that admitted,
then it would be simply impossible here
TO convict men of certain class OF
crimes. This shows that the theory car
ried to its limit could not help but defeat
the intent and purposes OF certain Fed
eral laws On this same theory, that be-
cause the law does not allow believers in
polygamy to sit on iuries in polygamy
cases, those believers should be denied
the elective franchise, so every man
who is disqualified to sit in certain cases
on any of the grounds OF challenge for
cause specified in the statute, should be
denied the elective franchise. As the
Tribune remarks: "This shows that this
thing carried to its limit could not help
but defeat the intent and purpose of GER
tain Federal laws" and we may add that
this theory carried to its limit could not
but result in eventually disfranchising
every citizen in the Territory, and in the
abolition of the jury system and free
government.
Examined thoroughly and impartially,
it is plain that the test of a mans fitness
to sit on jury is no criterion by which to
go in considering his fitness and right to
exercise the elective franchise. A man s
qualification TO sit as Judge Of the facts
in a controversy between two citizens or
between a citizen and the State can never
determine his qualifications for partici-
pating in the government of the State.
The most exemplary and loyal citizen in
Utah Territory might be forever dis
qualified for sitting upon jury owing to
the various causes which the law allows
as grounds upon which to base a chal-
lenge, but that should be no reason for
denying him the right to vote. Men who
see no difference between the right to sit
upon a jury and the right to vote have
confined views of things.