The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-19

1 or pOlySamlSI. de can only ceaSi
Y to be such wnen he has finally an(
fully dissolved IN some effective man
: ner, which we are not called on here
to point out, the very relation of hus-
band to several wives, which consti.
tutes the forbidden status he has pre-
viouSly assumed. Capitalization is but
one OF many incidents TO the marriage
relation 1t is not essential to it. One
: man, where such system has been
tolerated and practiced, may have sew
eral establishments, each of which NAV
be the home of separate family, none
of which he himself may dwell in or
| even visit. The statute makes an ex-
press distinction between bigamists
and polygamists on the one hand, and
those who cohabit with more than
one woman on the other; where
as, II Capitalization with several wives
was essential to the description of
those who are bigamists or polvga-
lillSts, those words in the statute would
pc superfiuOus and unnecessary. 1t
follows, therefore, that any person
having several wives is q bigamist or
polygamist i'll the sense of the act of
March %, 1882, although since the date
OF Its passage may not have cohabited
with more than one of them.
Upon this construction the statute is
not open to the objection that it is an
eG post Tdcto law. 1t does not seek in
tnls section and by the penalty of dis
reimbursement to operate as a punish
ment upon any offence at all. The
crime OF blgaIny or polygamy consists
III entering into bigamous or polvga-
nous marriage, and is complete when
the relation begins. That of actual CO.
habltaJion with more than one woman
is defined and the punishment pre-
scribed in the third section. The dis
reimbursement operates upon the exist
ing state and condition of the person.
and not upon past offence. 1t is,
therefore, not retrospective. He alone
is deprived OF his vote who, when he
offers to register, is then in the state
and condition of bigamist or polyg-
amlst, or Is then actually cohaDIting
with more than one woman. Disfran-
chisement is not prescribed as a penal
ty. for being guilty of the crime and
oHence OF bigamy or pOlygamy; for, as
has been said, that offence consists in
the TACT OF unlawful marriage, and
prosecution against the offender is
barred by the lapse of three wears, by
section 1914 of the Revised Statutes
| Continuing to 1--we in that state after
wards is. not an offence, although CO.
habltatlon with more than one woman
IS. But as one may be living in a bioa-
nous or poiygamous state without CO.
habltatlon with more than one woman,
he is In that sense bigamist or a
polygamist, and yet guilty of no crilni-
nal Offence. So that, in respect to
those disqualification of voter nm
der the act of March 22d, 1889, the OBJ
lection is not well taken that repre-
sents the inquiry into the fact by
the officers of registration as an un-
lawful mode of prosecution for
crime: In respect to the fact of actual
cohabltation with more than one
woman the objection is equally ground
less. Tor the inquiry into the fact, so
tar as the registration officers are au-
thoriZed to make it, or the Judges of
election, on challenge of the right of
the voter If registered, are required to
determine 1t, is not, in view of it's
character as u crime, MOI for the pur-
pose OF punishment, but for the sole
purpose OF determining, as in case of
every other condition attached to the
right of suffrage, the qualification of
one who alleges his right to vote. 1t is
precisely similar to an inquiry into the
fact OF nativity, of age, or of any
other status made necessary by law as
q condition of the elective franchise.
1t would be quite competent for the
sovereign power to declare that no one
but married person shall be entitled
to vote; and in that event the election
officers would be authorized to de-
termine for that occasion, in case of
question in any instance, upon the fact
OF marriage as a continuing status.
There is no greater objection, in point
OF law, to similar inquiry for the
like purpose into the fact of a subsist-
h iror1,
gamous relation, when it is made, as
by the statute under consideration, q
disqualification to vote.
The counsel for the appellants in
argument seem to question the con-
stltutional power of Congress to pass
the act of March 22nd, 1882, so far as it |
abridgeS the rights of electors in the |
Territory under previous laws. But |
that question is, we think, no longer |
opento discussion. 1t has passed be- |
yond the stage of controversy into final |
iudgment.E The people of the United |
States, as sovereign owners of the |
National Territories, have supreme
power over them and their inhabitants. |
In the exercise OF this sovereign do
miniOn, they are represented by the
government of the United States, to
whom all the powers of government
over that subject have been delegated,
subject only to such restrictions as
are expressed in the Constitution, or
are necessarily implied in its terms, or
in the purposes and objects of the
power itself; for it may well be adj
mitted in respect to this, as to every
power OF society over its members,
that it is not absolute and unlimited.
But in ordaining government for the
Territories, and the people who inhabit
them, all the discretion which belongs
to Legislative power is vested IN Con-
gress and that extends, beyond all con-
troversy, 20 determining by law, from
time to time, the form OF the local gov
ernmeEt in particular Territory, and
the qualification of those who Shall ,
administer it. 1t rests with Congress
to say whether, in given case, any of
the people, resident in the Territory, :
shall participate in the election of its ,,
officers orthe making of its laws; and
it may, therefore, take from them any
right of suffrage it may previously /.
have conferred; or at any time modify !
or abridge it, as is may deem expedi- ;
emit. The right of local self government,
as known to our system as constitu
tional franchise, belongs, under the !;
Constitution, to the States and to the
naonIa tharQ0f nv yvhon that ConcfitT- :