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


The full text of the opinion by the
United States Supreme Court in the
suits against the Commissioners and
registration officers appears in this
issue of The HERALD. Those who read
the synopsis that was telegraphed from
Washington, and who will now read the
full opinien, will find material differ
ence between thetwo, theformer failing
to state the points of the opinion either
clearly or correctly. The opinion
defines the duties of the Commissioners,
which are simply to administer the
Utah registration and election laws, their
authority being limited to the appoint
ment of registration and election OIL
GERS, the canvassing of returns, and the
issuing of certificates to such persons as
appear, by the returns as certified by
the election officers, to have been
elected This is the position to which
The HERALD has held from the first
and its protests against the orders, rules
and proceedings of the Commission
have been based on the departure OF the
latter from the plain line of its duty as
marked out in the Congressional act
creating it, and defined in the Terri
toriai law which it was instructed to
administer. 1t is the Utah election law
that the Commissioners were appointed
to enforce and they must
apply and enforce, it in
the way that the law itself
prescribes, and not as they think it
shocid be enforced. They have nothing
whatever to do with any Congressional
act beyond tkis: The Edmunds law Gre
ated certain disqualifcations on class
of citizens, barring that class from Vot-
ing or holding Office, and only to the
extent of denying to that class the sui.
frage and of1ee-holding privileges for
merly enjoyed can the Commissioners
lawfully depart from the Territorial
statute.
The Supreme Court holds thai as the
Edmunds act conferred upon the Com
mission no power to prescribe conditions
of registration or Of voting, the rules
that have been promulgated are null
and void. The registration officers
must register persons qualified under
the laws of the Territory and not dis
qualified by the eighth section of the
Edmunds act, who offer to take the
oath set out In the local law. The
eighth section of the Edmunds act is
the one which declares that no blgam
list, polygamist. or any person cohabit-
with more than one woman. and no
woman cohabiting with any man de-
scribed as above is entitled to vote. The
Court does not say how the registrars
shall obtain the information as
to the status of the appli-
cant for registration as to the
disqualification. but intimates that the
facts may be learned either by modifi-
cation of the statutory oath, or by other
means, but whatever course he may
pursue in the premises the officer must
be certain of the existence OF the dis
qualification before striking name
from the registration list or re fusing to
register person offering to take the
oath, the registrar being declared liable
for damages for refusing to register one
entitled to vote. !
An important feature of the opinion
is that defining a polygamist or biga-
mist under the eighth section of The
Edmunds act, or with reference to the
disfranchising declaration of the law.
A distinction is drawn between poly
gamist subject to prosecution under the
first section of the act, and polygamist
liable to disfranchiSement by the eighth
section Of the lay. A polygamist who
could not be prosecuted criminally. by
reason of the interposition in his behalf
Of the statute of limitations which bars
the institution of an action after three
years from the marriage, would yet be
held polygarniSt under Section OF the |
Edmunds act, and as such would not
be entitled to vote, provided he con-
hnued the relation of husband to more
than one woman, whether or not there
was actual eohabitason with more than
enc, or with none. On the other hand
the disfranchisem ceases when the |
bigamoas or polygamous relation termi- |
mates, and does not continue, as the
Commission held, through all time. the !
erdef OF the bound board in effect, |
'sonce a polygamist always polyga- !
mist" The language of the opinion on
this point is as follows: ."He alone is
aeprived Of his vote who. when he
efers to register. is then in the state
and condition of bigamist or poIyg-
aaliss, OF is then actually eohabiting
With more than one woman, AS we