The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-25
THE OPINION.

THE HERALD suggests that 1t wa:
somewhat previous" in its editoria
comment on Tuesday on the scope O.
the Supreme Court decision in the case.
OF Mary Ann Pratt and others agains
the Utah Commissioners and ,registra
ton officers. The article was based upeT
the following telegram, received early ir
the evening:
WASHINGTON, March %.
The Supreme Court of the United
States to-day sustained the decision OF
the court below in favor of the board OF
commissioners, appointed under the Ed
munds act to supervise elections In
Utah.
The natural and reasonable presunp-
ton was thatas the, opinion sustained
the decision of the court below" which
was in every particular in favor of the
Commissioners and registrars and de-
puties, the plaintiffs were defeated and
the rules and doings of the Commission
approved as legal, even to the extent of
sustaining the test oath that was repro
duced. After the article was in the
form and the writer had re-
tired, the text of the Supreme
Court opinion came over the
wires, putting a different phase upon
the matter than that conveyed in the
original dispatchs The opinion seems
to be a sort of double-barrel affair,
and in the absence of the full text its
whole force and effect cannot be stated
clearly. The Court declares that the
test oath provided by the Commissioners
is void and without effect; it then goes
on to state that the oath being void,
could not rightly be required to be
taken by persons offering themselves
for registration, and that the registrars
erred and laid themselves liable to suits
for damages in refusing to register
parties who declined to take the oath.
The Commissioners who framed the
oath and required the registration
officers to see that no one was registered
who declined to take it, are excused from
liability, because the oath being
void, the registrars were not obliged to
enforce it; having enforced it, the regis
tration officers themselves are made
liable for damages, there being no rela-
ton of principal and agent between the
Commissioners and registrars. In other
words, the formulating of rules by the
Commission is not ministerial and there
fore cannot furnish cause for action
against the Commissioners the regis
tratlon is ministerial and if the officer
deprive a person of his right to vote the
registrar becomes liable for damage.
We take it, though the opinion is not
clear as to the point, that the wife Of
polygamist, if she has not lived with
her husband since the passage of the
Edmunds bill, March %, 1SS2,-the case
of the plaintiff Mrs Randall-and the
widow of a polygamist whose husband
died previous to the time that the bill
became law-the case of the plaintiff
Mrs. Pratt-can register and vote.
This seems proper, as they have Dot
violated the law that disfranchises
polygamists.
A peculiar feature of the opinion is
that while the Commissioners are re-
strained from providing the oath, and
the registrars must not enforce the
oath, the latter, while they are not
agentsef the Commissioners, must see
that persons offering to register are free
from the disqualifcations defined in the
act In SO doing, they are required to
exercise diligence and good faith in their
inquiries, and are responsible in DANA
ges for reflections made without reason
able cause, or maliciously" Does this
mean that the registrars must inyesti- |
gate the case of everyone applying for
registration, and if so, what
will be the nature of the
investigations must they take oaths of
Others. viii they conduct the inquiries
before justice or other judicial officer,
or will they accept street rumor? Per
haps the opinion viii explain.
An ugly feature of the opinion is that |
which so emphaticaIly asserts the alb
solute authority of the government over
the Territories. This is the Republican
party theory and has been acted upon
by the party, but we believe the Su-
preme Court has never before so plainly
declared it to be constitutional. The
court decides that while the principle
of constitutional liberty restraints Con-
gress from interference with the per-
sonal and civil rights of citizens
of Territory, the political
rights and franchises of such citizens
are subject to the discretion of the Ma
tional Legislature. Congress cannot
deprive the resident of Territory of