Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-03-24
The UTAH COMMISSION.
The Utah Commis sion Sustained by
the Supreme Court Of the
Uaited States.
The Decision Of the Court Below. in
Favor Ct the Board appointed Under
the Kdmunts Act. Stands.

q the United States to-day in a series
Of five cases, known ga the poIygSmy
causes broueht by certain Mormon
citizens Of UCAh for the purpose OF get.
log q judicial decision 81 TO the power
OF the board Of commissioners or can
vsssers, appointed uuder the sn-callpd
r imunos act OF Mach -, 1852, to SUI
p,rvise elections in that territory,
The cOmplSiuaufs ana appellants in
these cas's sre jess J Murpbey.
Mary Ann NJ. Pratt, Mildred f aud
Alfred Randall, Ellen Z. and Hiram
b Clan-on, and james NJ Barlow
The defendants and appeliees are
Alex Ramsay aud others, constituting
the federal board Of commissioners and
certain r. gistration I'll cers appointed
by them.
The principle question raised by the
suits is whether the board II comwis
siOuers appointed uudrr the Edmunds'
act had the power TO prescribe rs g con-
ditioD Of the registration Of vO ers, SO
= discriminating test, an oath requir-
ing the applicant for registration to
swear, II Mormon, that he lie not q
bigamist or pOlygamist, and does not
lhNG vi Ngllhbll WIN lDdn O1t
woman in the marriage relation; or, il
woman, that she 10 not the wife OF a
pol ygamist, and has not entered into
any relation with any man in viola
ton OF the laws of the United States
concerning polygsmy or dig tmy. This
court holds, that the rules promulgated
by the board prescribing the form OF
oath 10 be executed by persons offer.
In To ~. taN. - a,
C institute the directions under which,
Ulcers acted in the Cases
complained of, were without force and
no effect can be given them.
ut canuot be alleged, the court
holds, that they had the effect in law
Of preventing the registration Of the
plaintiffs, for the registration officers
we're not bound or aut horiZ d TO obey
them; and If they did SO, they did II
ia their own wrong There was no
relation between the board and the
officers appointed by them of princi.
pal and agent, so as TO make the mem.
bers Of the former liable for what the
latter msy have Illegally done under
heir instructions. and, therefore,
there Is no connection In law between
the wrongs complained Of. II IL be
supposed that the board had the p wer
Which it seems they claimed and TX.
ercised, putting iuto form rules for the
vernment reg istrRtiou officers, they
uninterrupted the law aud In Il at
way placed Illegal restrictions upon
the right OF outrage In the territory.
such acts of administrations were
uot ministerial, and cannot be made
ground for action. They would ue of
that class which involve an exercise
of judgment and discretion in the
public officers and which, even wien
erroneous, cannot furnish cause Of ac-
ton for damage
"In either view, therefore, the judg.
ment In favor of the boar OF conItnis.
sion rs In the court below, was rightly
| rendered
AS regards the power and RESPONSE
bility Of the registration officers, the
court holds that they were merely
minisl erial Off ers aud IL they de-
| prived the compl dnsnls Of their right
10 be registered ~ voters in violation
II the law, they are Responsible for
their action in damages.
he court then takes up, and eT.
amines, the cases separately and holds
hat the complainants, Mary Ann NJ
Pratt and Mildred T. Randall, were
clearly deprived OF their right TO regis
ter without the au horiiy of tn. Law,
since Ivy their allegsli ms they *.
Guided thems' Ives from the disqualifi
cations Of the act OF 1882 Ell n @,
Clauson, Jease j Murphy and James
M Bsflrw, on the other hand, We're.
the court holds, included In the dis.
qualification Of the net and had no
eight to regi-tra ion. In reaching
these conclusions, the court In its olin.
ON makes an elaborate review of tho
act Of 1889, for The purpose Of CIV.
| ing constTuc In To some Of
rs provisions and showing how
theN apply to the present cases, Nv
that act the court holds 1t il made the
| duty of the registration officers TO see
that the persnn- fl .ripy 10 register are
free from the di qualification defined
therein. In no doing they are required
10 exercise diligence and good fslt h In
their Inquiries, aud are responsible II
damages for reflections made without
reasonable cause or mallciously. In
he case OF Mary Ann NJ. Pratt and
Mildred Il II ,ndall, above referred To
the allegations Of the complaint moi
only sho~ that the complainants were
not only legally entitled TO be regis.
tered, hut declare that the refusal
II the registration officers 10 admit
them to the list was wrongful and ms
licious. The demurers admit the case
rs thus stated, aud should, therefore.
have been overruled
In conclusion, Justice Matthew'S.
who delivered The opinion OF the c,urt'
says, with reference 10 the copstitu.
ti1naliIy OF the aforementioned act.
'Vhe counsel for the appellants in the
argument seemed TO question the con-
su utional power OF congress 10 nas.
the act OF March %. 1882, so far as n
toridges the tights OF electors in the
territory under the previous laws. but
hat question lie, we think, no
longer open TO discussion. In
has passed beyoi d the stag
~ controversy iuto fiual Judgment
Tue peorlr IT the Uuited States. IA
sovereign officers and owners OF ihs
national territories, have suprems
power over them and their ,nhsh
| ttants In the exHrnisa ~ tb;a -.