The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-03-24
DECIDED.
The Commissioners Sustained
by the Supreme Court
IN THE REGISTRATION SUITS.
The Supreme Power of Congress to
.LegisIate for the Territories
and their People.
The Decision in the Polygamy Suits !.

The Decision in the Polygamy Suits.
WASHINGTON, March pa. decision
was rendered by the Supreme Court Of
the United States to-day, in series of
five cases known as the polygamy suits,
brought by certain Mormon citizens of
Utah for the purpose of getting judi
cial decision as to the power of the
board of commissioners or canyassers
appointed under the so-called Edmunds
act of March, 1882, to supervise elections
in that Territory. The compliments 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 81 Barlow. The
defendants and appellees are Alex.
Ramsey, and oth:rs, constituting the
Federal board of commissioners, and
certain registration officers appointed
| by them. The principal question raised
! by the suits is, whether the board of
commissioners appointed under the
Edmunds act had power TO prescribe,
as condition of registration of voters,
"a discrimination test oath, requiring
the applicant for registration to swear
that he or she is not living in a state of
bigamy or polygamy. This Court
holds that the rules promulgated
| by the board prescribing the form of
oath tobe exacted of persons offering to
register, as voters, and which constitute
the directions under which it is alleged
the registration officers acted in cases
here complained of, were without force,
and that no effect can be given them.
t"Itcannot be alleged" the Court holds,
"that they had the effect in law of pre-
venting the registration of plaintiffs,
for the registration officers were not
bound nor authorized 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 ap-
pointed by them of principal and
agent, so as to make the members of
the former liable for what the latter
may have Illegally done under their
instructions, and, therefore, no connec-
ton in law between the acts of the
board, as charged, and the wrongs COM
planned of. If it be supposed that
the board had power, which
it seems they claimed and exercised,
putting into form the rules for the gov
eminent of the registration officers;
| their Interpretation OF the law, and, in
that way, published erroneous and il
! legal restrictions upon the right of suf-
frage in the Territory, such acts of adj
ministration were not ministerial and
cannot be ground of action. They would
be of that class, which involve the
exercise of Judgment and discretion in
public affairs and which even when err
roneous, cannot furnish a cause of ac-
ton for damages. In either view, there
fore, judgment in favor of the board of
commissioners in the court below was
rightly rendered."
AS regards the power and reponsibil-
ity of the registration officers, the Court
holds they were merely ministerial Of
ficers, and if they deprived the COM
plalnants- of their rights to be registered
as voters in violation of law, they are
responsible in all action for damages.
The Court then takes up and exam
ines the cases separately and holds
4 that the compliments Mary
Ann Pratt and Mildred E.
Randall were clearly deprived of their
right to registration without authority
of law, since by their allegations they
excluded themselves from the disqualifi-
cations of the act of 1882. Ellen G. Claw
son, Jesse j. Murphy and James M.
Barlow, on the other hand, were, the
Court holds, included in the disqualii-
cations of the act, and had no right to
registration. In reaching these conclu-
4 sions, the Court, in its opinion, makes
an elaborate review of theact of 1882,
for the purpose of giving construction
to some of its provisions and showing
how they apply to the present cases.
BY that act, the Court holds, it is made
the duty of registration officers to see
i that persons offering to register are free
from the disqualifications defined there
in. In SO doing, they are required to
exercise diligence and good faith in their
inquiries, and are responsible in damages
/ for reflections made without reasonable
cause. or maliciously.
In the cases of Mary Ann Pratt and
Mildred E. Randall, above referred to,
the allegations of the complaint not
only show that compliments were
legally entitled to be registered as
votres, but declare that the refusal of
the registration officers to admit them
to the list was wrongful and malicious
, The demurrers admit the case as thus
Z stated and should, therefore, have been
, overruled.
In conclusion, Justice Matthews, who
- uCAlF lllC " 'AAaiOii VI tAAO OOulo, say .
with reference to the constiUutionality
of the aforementioned act:
, Counsel for appellants in the argu-
mentse seemed to question the constitu.
tional power of Congress to pass the
+, act of March 22d, 1882, so far as ii
| abridges the rights of electors in the
, Territory under previous laws. But
that question is, we think, no longer
open to discussion. 1t has passed be
yond the stage of. controversy into
: final Judgment. The scope o.
the United States, as sovereign
owners OF the National Territories
have supreme power over them anc
: their inhabitants In the exercise o.
!, this sovereign dominion, they are re
presented by the government OF the
! United States, to whom all powers o.
government over that subject have beer
delegated, subject only to such restric
lions as are expressed in the Consutu
ton or necessarily implied in its terms
or in the purposes and objects OF tbs
power itself. In ordaining govern
ment for the Territories and people whs
= inhabit them, all the discretion Wnicf