Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-03-24
RIGHTS OF UTAH VOTERS.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY
THE SUPREME COURT.

AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Powers of the Edmunds Commits
sion Concerning Registration Set
Forth in DetaiI-The Rules Not Efrec-
tive in Law in Preventing Registra-
tiOn, and the Commission Not EN-
powered to Appoint Agents who
Could be Held Responsible.
WASHINGTON, March pa decision
was rendered by the Supreme Court of
the United States to-day in the series of
five cases known as the pOlygamy suits,
which were brought by certain Mormon
citizens of the Territory OF Utah for the
purpose OF getting a judicial decision as
to the power of the board of commission
ers or canvassers appointed under the So
called Edmunds act of March %, 1882, to
supervise elections in that Territory.
The complainants and appellants IN these
cases are Jesse j. Murphy, Mary Ann Pratt
Mildred E. and Alfred Randall. Ellen G, and
Hiram B. Clawson and James NJ. Barlow, de-
PENDANTS. The appelees are Alexander
Ramsey and others constituting the Federal
board of commissioners and certain registra-
tration officers appointed by them. The
principal question raised by the suits is
whether the board of commissioners appointed
under the Edmunds act had the power to
prescribe as a condition OF the registration of
voters the discriminating oath requiring the
applicant for registration to swear (if a mani
that he is not bigamist or polygamist, and
does not live or cOhablt with more than one
woman in marriage relation, Cf tif woman)
that she is not the wife Of a polygamist, and
has not entered INTO any relation with any man
in violation of the laws of the United States
concerning polygamy or blgamy.
THE COURTS RULING.
The court holds that the rules promulgated
by the board prescribing the form Of Oatn to
be exacted OF persons offering to register as
voters, and which constitute the directions
under which it is alleged that the registration
officers acted in the cases here complained of
were without force and that no effect can be
gwen to them 1T cannot be alleged" the
court holds, THAT they had the effect in Jaw
OF preventing the registration of the plaintiffs
for the registration officers were not hound
nor authorized to obey them, and if they did
so they did II in their own wrong. There was
no relation between the board and the cficers
appointed by them of principal and agent so
as 10 make members of the former liable for
what the latter may have Illegally done under
their Instructions, and, therefore, no cOnnec-
tion IN law exists between the acts of the
board as charged and the wrongs complained
NOT CAUSE FOR ACTION.
II it be supposed that the board had the
power. which 1t seems they claimed and ex-
creased, or putting into the form of rules for
the government OF registration officers their
Interpretation Of the law, and in that way
published erroneous and ILLEGAL restrictions
upon the right of suffrage in the territory,
such acts OF administration were not minis
terlal and cannot be made the ground of
action. They would be of that class which
lDVolVe the exercise of judgment AMI discre-
tlon In pubic officers, and which, even when
erroneous, cannot furnish cause of action for
damages. In either view, therefore, the
judgment in favor of the board eff com mis-
sloners In the court below was rightly rem
dered."
AS regards the power and responsibility of
registration ohcers the court holds that they
were merely ministerial officers, and if they
deprived the cOmplainants of their right to be
registered as voters in violation of the law they
are responsible in action for damages. The
court then takes up and examines the cases
separately, and holds that the complainants
Mary Ann Pratt and Mildred e, Randall
were clearly del rived OF their right of regis
tration without authority Of the law, since by
their allegations they exclude them selves
from the disqualifcatiOns Of the act of 1882.
NOT OUT OF THE LIMITS.
Ellen G. Clawson, Jesse j. Murphy and
James M. Barlow on the other hand were the
court holds, included in the disqualifcatiOns
OF the act and had no right to registration.
In reaching these conclusions, the court in its
opinion IA kes an elaborate review of the act
OF 1882 for the purpose of giving construction
to some OF Its PROVISIONS and OF showing how
they apply to the present cases Bv that oct
the curt holds that it is made the d"ty Of
registration officers 10 see that pers ms offer
ing to register are Tree from the disqualifica-
tlons det ed therein. In so doing they are
required TO exercise diligence and good faith
in their inquiries, and are responsible in dam
ages for rejectOns made without reasonable
cause or mallcIously In the cases of
Mary ann Pratt and Mildred Z. Randall
the above referred to allegations of
the complaint not only show that the com
plalnants W. re legally entitled to registration
voters, but declare that the refusal of the
36p p1it fhor to
was wrongful and malicious. The demurrers
ADMIT the case as thus stated, and should
therefore have been Overrulcd" !"
CONSTITUUONALITY OF THE ACT.
In conclusion Justice Matthews, who de-
Gvered the opinion Of the cOurt saws viii,
reference to the cOnstitutionality of the above
mentioned act: THE counsel for the appel
ldnts In the argument seemed TO question the
constitutional power of Congress tc pass the
act OF March y, 1882, far as it abridges the
rights OF electors in the Territory under Dre-
ylous laws, but that question is, we
think, no longer ODen to discussion 1t has
passed beyond the stage of controversy into a
nnal judgment. The people of the United
states, as sovereign owners of the national
Territories, have supreme power over them
ana thelr inhabitants. In the exercise of this
sovereign DOMINION they are represented bv
the Government of the United States, to
whom all powers Of government over that
su Ject have been delegated, subject only to
such res trictions as are expressed in the CON
stitutIon or are necessarily implied in its
terms or in the purposes and objects Of the
power itself.
VESTED IN CONGRESS.
In ordaining government for the Terrific
RES and the people who inhabit them all
discretion which belongs to the legislative
power IS vested in Congress. and that extends
beyond any controversy Of determining nv
law from time to time the form of local COW
ernment IN a particular territory, and the
qualifications of those who shall administer
II; ~ Ieets with Congress to say
whether III given case any of
the people resident in territory shall
participate IN the electsOn of its officers or the
making OF lJs law, and it may therefore take
from them any right of suffrage it previously
mas conferred, or at any time modify or abridce
II, as 1t may deem eXpedient. The personal
and civil rights OF the Inhabitants of The Ter
ritories are secured to them, as to all other
clIlzens, by the principles of constitutional
liberty, which restrain all agencies of the
government, State and national. Their no.
ltical rights are franchises which thev hold
as privileges in the legislative discretion of
the Congress of the United States.
THIS ACT SAFE.
If we concede that this discretion in Con
gress IS limited by the obvious purposes for
which 1t was conferred, and that those mr.
poses are satisfied by measures which nre
pare the Territories to become states in the
Union. still the onclusion cannot b. avoided
that the act OF Congress here in question is
clearly within that Justification, for certainly
no Legislation can be supposed more whole
some and necessary in the forming of a free. |
sell -goveralnS commonwealth, 1t to take rank |
as one Of the cO-Ordlnates Of the Union. than
that which seeks to establish it |
on the basis or idea of q |
family consisting in and springing from |
the union for life Of one man and one woman |
in the holy state of matrimohy, the sure foun- |
dation of all that is stable and noble in our |
civilization, the best guarantee of that rever- |
ent morality which is the source of all benef- |
cent progress in social and political improve |
ment, and to this end no means are more di- |
rectly and Immediately suitable than those |
provided by this act, which endeavors to /
withdraw all political influence from those |
who are practically hostile TO its attainment" |
The judgments OF the court below in the |
cas- OF jesse }. Murphy, Ellen G. and Hiram |
B. ClawsOn, and j. NJ. Barlow, are affirmed |
as to all the defendants below and the |
appellees here; In the cases Of Mary Ann NJ. |
Pratt, and Mildred (. and Alfred Rand M |
the judgments are affirmed as to all the |
defendants and appellees, except K. D. Hoge, |
John ). Lindsay and HarmeI Pratt. AS to |
them the judgments are reversed, and the |
cases remanded, with directions to overrule |
the demurrers. Justice Field dlssented from |
parts of the opinion of the court.