The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-03-24

a SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Elaborate Review aud yoluble opinion
on the Utah Repatriation Act-
Power of Congress In Civil
and Political Rights.

NOiou " tue supreme court OF
Inc United states to-day in series OF
inc cases known as POlygamy Causes,
brought by certain Mormons. citize,s
ol Utah, for the purpose of getting
judicial decision as to tho power of the
board OF commissioners, or cauyassers
appointed under the so-called Edmnnds
act, OF March -, 1882, to supervise
eject ons in that territory. The com.
plalnshts and appellants in these cases
are Jesse j. Murphy, Mary Ann nj.
Fratt, Mildred II. ana Alfred Randall,
ellen G. and Hiram Il, Clauson
and James NJ. Barlow. The defendants
ana appellees are Alex. Ramsey and
others, constituting the federal board of
commissioners, aud certain registra-
ton olhcers appointed by them. The
prlhclpal question raised by the suits is
Whether the board appointed under tho
Ednunds act had power to prescribe
az condition of the registration
OF voters discriminating test oath re-
curing applicant for registration to
swear, II Mormon, that he il not
nlgamlst or pOlygamist, and does not
llVe or cohahit with more than one
woman IN the marriage relation. Or, If
woman, that she is not tLe
wife OF a polygamist, and has
uot entered into any relation
with any mao in violation of the laws OF
the United States concerning polygamv
or bigamy. This court holds that the
rules promulgated by the board pre-
scrlbing the form of oath To be- executed
by persons Offering 10 register as voters,
ana which constitute the directions un-
der which IL il alleged the registration
oinceiS acted in the cases
complained of were without force and
no effect can be given them 1t cannot
he alleged, the court holds, that they
| mad tho effect in law of preventing rev
lstrati0u of plaintiffs, for the registra-
| non oiilcers were not bound or author
lzed 10 obey them and if they did 20,
they did IL in their own wrong.
I There was no relation betwean the
board and tEe officers appointed low
them Of principal and agan', so ~ To
make the members Of tho torlnor liable
| Tor what the latter may have illegally
done under their Instructions, aud
therefore no connection in law between.
the acts OF the board As
charged and the wrongs complained
Of, and If it be snppossd
tina the board had the power which. Il
seems, they claimed aud exercised of
| putting into form rules for the govern
ment OF registration officer. their inter.
t'NtNp'N" "a Wy" law anu IN
mat way published erroneous
and illegil restrictions upon tho
right Of suffrage 10 the territory. Such
acts Of administrations were not minis
trah aud cannot be made ground for
actiou. They would bo OF that class
which, IN value, The exercise Of iudg-
mrnt and discretion in public officers,
and which, oven when errOuacps, can
/ rot furnish cause of action for damarn.
/ In eithor view, therefore, the Judgment
l IN favor OF the board of commissioners
/ IN the Cuur. b-low WIS rirh Nv
/ rendered as regards tua power
ana respectahiity Ul g.. istrltion of
iicers. The c1ult holds they wore
merely ministerial officer ana lC they
deprived cOmplaiuautS of their right tn
DO registered rs voters it violation Ui
law, they ara responsible Tor action IN
damages. The courb ,iu takes up and
examines the cases Darately, and
holds that compliments, dlry NJ. Pratt
lmd Mildred Il. RmdAl, wer,
clearly deprived of their rlghl
10 register without authority
Iot law, since by their allegations tbey
excluded themselves from thadisqualiti
cations Of the act OF 1889. Ellen G. Clau
son, Jesse j. Murphy and James NJ
Barlow, on the other hand, the cnur
tiOns OF the act aud had no right 20 reg
isira.iuu. In reaching these conclusions
tho court, in lis opinion, mhfeS ON clhh
crate review OF the act OF lSS2, FOL
the purpose OF giving cuustruc
ton To some Of It. provisions
an! showing how they apply
to tho present. cases. By that act, IN,
court holds, 10 Is made the duty OF reg
is'ra.ion officers To SEQ that persons of
ieriug 10 register are Tree from the dis
qualifications defined therein. In so do
ing they are required to exercise dili
gence aud good faith In their inquiries
ard are responsible In damages for rn
lections made without reasona
ne cause or maliciuusly. l.
the case Of Mary NJ, Pra.
and Mildred Il. Randall, above referred
20, the allegations not only show that
coup aiutlJs Yst3 u1touly legally on
titled 10 be roy stored, bu. declare tina
the refusal OF tho registration officers {,
admit them was wrongful and ma
llciOus demurrors as thus stated, and
should, therefore, havo bssn ovarrulel.
! IN conclusion, Justice Matthews, who
deliYorod the opinion Ofthe court, says;
With reference 90 tho con.
stiiutionallty Of the above,
mentioned act, counsel for appellants In
argument seemed % question tho con
sutulional power Of congress 10 pass the
act OF March y, 1852, so lar as Il abridgei
the rights Of electors IN tho territory
under previous laws, but that question
~, we think, no longer open to discus
sion. u has passed beyond the
stage of controversy into tho fnal
Judgment OF the people o
tho United States as officer.
OF the territories have supreme power
over them and their inhabitants, Iu
tho exercise OF this dominion thev are
represented by tho government Of Ia.
United States 10 whom all powers ol
government over that subject has boeu
delegated, subject Onlvto such rostric.
lions rs are expressed In the constitu
ton or necessarily implied In its terms
or IN lts Purposes and objects, the
power Itself. In ofdanlng a govern
mont FOR the territories and the psople
VINO lnhabit them all discretion which
belongs TO lhe legislative power Is Wis.
TED IN congress uud that extends be.
yond any controversy TO dolerininiug
by law from time to limo the form OF
local government o, n particular terri
tory, and the Publications OF
those who shall administer
IL. IL rests with congress
TO say whether Ia a given case any OF
the people resident ina territory shall
| participate In the election of IT. officers,
or In making laws, and may therefore
take nom them any right OF suffrage II
may previously have conferred, or M
any time modify or abrldge II ~ IL may
deem expedient The personal aud
| civil rights OF tho inhnbi.
tants Of the territories are occurred
to them rs TO all their citizens hv tho
principles OF constitutional liberty.
which restrain all government, state
aud national. Their political rights are
franchi SEES which they hold ~ privilege
IN the legislative discrimination OF tho
congress of tho United States. n we
conoode that THIS discrimination In con.
gress Is limited by the obvious pro.
cess for which IL was conferred
and thet these purposes are satisfied by
the measures which prepare she people
OF tue territories 10 become citizens OF
states Ia the union, still the conclusion
cannot hn aVatHaa that ~. a.... -.