The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1885-03-26
POLL IlCS AND FOLYGhMY.
\ sOPHtws ooUat otolsloN-
Elaborate Review Rba fpiubie Opinion
on the Utah Registration Act
Power ~ congress in civil
nui Poiitioni Iirhts.

l-'AN'fh '''ANAN'NA ~ W HAs HbNhA NA wv
board of commissioners, or canyasssrs
appointed under tho sO-Callod edmund
act OIL March -, 1850, to supOryis,
elections IN that territory. The com
plain. ants and appellants Ia these easel
are Jesse j. Murphy, Mary Ann NJ
Pratt, Mildred T., and Alfred Randall
El len &. and Hiram Is. ClsusoI
@ad James NJ. Barlow. The defendants
n nd appel eos are Alex. Ramsey anC
ofhers, constituting the federal board o.
commissioners, and certain registra
lion officers Gpuointed by them, The
tpr!ncipal question raised by the suits Il
whether the board appointed under the
.BGmund5 act had power TO proscribC
az q condition of the registration
of VOters'a discriminating tost oath re-
Quirlng applicant for registration Il
swear, If Il Mormon, that he Is not q
bisamist or pOlyggmist, and does not
live or cOhRbiJ with more than one
woman In the marriage relation. Or, II
woman, that she IL not tie
wife OF Il pollygamlst' and has
with any man IN violation of the laws OF
the United States concerning polySamy
or bigamy. This court holds that the
rules promulgated by the board pre-
scribing the form OF oath to DO executed
by persons offering TO register us yoters'
and which constitute tho directions un-
der which i. is alleged the registration
officers acted In tho cases
complained OF wero without force and
no effect can 100 given them. IL csnnUt
be alleged, tho court holds, that they
had the effect ia law of preventing reg
istration of plaintiffs, for the re istra-
ton officers wore not bound or author
lied TO obey them and if they did so,
they did it in their own wrong.
There was no relation between The
board and the officers appointed by
them of principal and agent, so az 10
make the members of the former liable
for what the latter may have illegally
done under their Instructions, aud
therefore no connection in law between
s the pc: s1d t Of the 90. board as
OF, and if it be supposed
that the board had the power which, it
seems, they claimed and exercised of
putting into form rules for the govern
ment of registration officer, their inter.
probation of the law, and In
t and lS way rdp" aGisiHSd
right of suffrage in the territory. Such
acts of administrations were not minis
trial, and cannot be made ground for
action. They would be of that class
which, III value, the exercise of iudg-
mont and discretion IN public officers,
and which, even when erroneous, can
not furnish cause of action for damage. !
In other view, therefore, the Judgment
in favor of the board of commissioners
In the court below was RICH ly |
rendered az regards the power
and responsibility of registration Of |
ficers. The court holds they were |
merely ministerial officers, and If they |
depriyca cOmplainauts of their right to |
be registered is voters in violation of |
law, they are responsible for action in |
damages. The court then takes up and !
examines the cases separately, aud |
holds that cOmplainsnts, Mary NJ. Pratt
clearly deprived of their right
to register without authority
of law, since by their allegations they
excluded themselves from the disqualif-
cations OF the act of 1882. Ellen G, Ciau-
son, Jesse j. Murphy and James NJ.
Barlow, on the other hand, the court
holds, are included in the disGualifica-
tons of the act and had no right to reg
istration. In reaching these conclusions,
the court, in its opinion, makes an eIab-
orate review of the act OF 1882, for
lion to some of its provisions,
and showing how they apply
10 the present cases. BY that act, the
court holds, it is made the duty of reg !
stration officers to see that persons Of
,erlng to register are Tree from the dis
qualifications defined therein. In so do !
ng they are required to exercise dill !
ind are responsible in damages for re. |
ections made without reasona- t
he case Of Mary .y-i''' NJ. Pratt i
md Mildred Il. Randall, above referred !
o, the allegations not only show that 6
omp ainants were ~. ouly legally en- t
tiled to be registered, but declare that {
he rntll lgl lliA t,, q
Omit them was wrongful and ma t
lcious demurrers as thus stated, aud !
hould, Therefore, have been oyerru ed, b
In conclusion, Justice Matthews, who q
eliyerod the opinion Of the court, says: L
Ht5h difference Of to ths the ,n CON
nentioned act, counsel for appellants in -.
rgument seemed to question the con i
titutionsl power Of congress to pass tho d
ct of March %, 1882, so far as it abrdges "
he rights OF electors in the territory il
nder previous laws, but that question b
:, we think, no longer open to discus h
ion. IT has passed beyond the So
, "a OF controversy into the final u
le United States as officers II
the territories have supreme power jc
YER them and their inhabitants. In ic
,e exercise OF this dominion they are n
presented by the government of the al
.nited States 20 whom all powers of
overnmsnt overt that subject has been
9legated, subject only to such restric.
ons as are expressed in the constitu-
on or necessarily implied in it's terms re
: in its purposes and objects, the til
)wer itself. In ordainipg a govern or
ent for the territories and the people a,
no inhabit them all discretion which 49,
,longs TO the Legislative power is WIS., &c
ed in congress and that extends be- w
md any controversy to Determining iii ii,
law from time to time the form Of ifr
cal government of q particular terrri- ~
ry, and the qualifications of w w
ose who shall administer ar
1t rests with congress o. O.,
say whether in given case any of n
rticipate in the election of it's officers, o or
in making laws, and may therefore fe
le from them any right Of suffrage it> in IN
ay previously have conferred, or at r.,
y time modify or abridge it as it may wi
EN- expedient. The personal and mi
IT'S of f sbe territories Ht the inhab
them as to all their citizens by the i iii'
nciples OF constitutional liberty, en- en-
lich restrain all government, state 81,
d national. Their political rights are NJ
nchises which they hold as privilege an
the Legislative Discrimination of the th,
3gress of the United States, II we ~ ~
icede that this discrimination. in oen- e th'
ss is limited by the obvious pro. s sn'
s for which IL was conferred IL
that these purposes are satisfied by 10 10
h q Sarrifor;ae 70 baoPna,e s n;.; PeuPie an,
tesia the union, still the conclusion uh
not be avoided that the question =
reiEis clearly within the jurisdiction
ongreas. Certainly legislation can Cos
supposed as more wholesome and II
essaIy in forming a free, self-gov- asi
ng commonwealth Git to take oti