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

legislation can be supposed more
wholesome and necessary in the found
ing OF free; Self-goyernin@ common
wealth, ut to take rank as one Of the
Coordinate States of the Union, than
that which seeks to establish it on the
basis of the idea of the family, as con-
Sisting in and springing from the union
Tor life OF one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and
noble in our civilization: the best
guaranty of that reYerent morality
which is the source of all benefceRt
progress in social and political i'm
provement. And to this end, no means
are more directly and Immediately
suitable than those provided by this
act, which endeavCrS 10 withdraw all
political influence from those who are
practically hostile to its attainment.
1t remains to be considered whether,
IN the two cases in which Mary Ann
! NJ. Pratt and Mildred E. Randall and
husband are respectively the plaintiffs,
and IN which the plaintiffs have shown
a title tovote, the defendants who were
registration officers, are sufficiently
charged with a legal liability.
As we have pointed out, they were
bound by virtue of their appointment
under the 9th section of the acs of
| March 22d, 1882, to perform their duties
under the existing laws Of the United
States and of the Territory. The law
OF the Territory then in force, being
IAN act providing for the registration
of voters and to further regulate th@.
manner of conducting elections fntlis
| Territory" approved February I'D,
1878, made it the duty of the registra-
ton officers and their deputies ito
make careful inquiry as to any or all
persons entitled to vote" and asCer-
tain Ia al cases upon what ground tae
| person claims TO be q voter, and : <
provided that che sh..l clt,l,Irs. each
/ person entitled to vote and desiring 80
be registered to take and subscribe in
substance the following OATH" &c.
The form OF the oath is then set out,
containing statement of all the par
ticulars which, according to the laws
then IN force, were necessary to show
the qualifications of voter 1t was
then provided, that, upon the receipt of
such affidavit, the officer ''shall place
the name of such voter upon the regis
ter list of the voters of the county,
The act of March 22d, 1882, created
| the additional disqualifications which
have been mentioned, and which, of
course, are not met by the oath as pre-
scrlbed by the territorial act OF 1878,
and it is not consistent with the express
provisions of the act of Congress, that
every person willing to take the cath i'll
the form prescribed by the territorial
act shall be permitted to register as 4
voter. Either the oath itself must DE
regarded merely as model, TO be medi-
he'd by the operation OF the act of Con-
gress, so as to meet by appropriate
denialS the several new disqualified
tons created by it, and then to be taken
with the prescribed effect of emitting
the person subscribing it to register as
voter without other proof; or else the
effect OF the act of Congress is to limit
the class entitled to take the oath in the
form prescribed by the territorial act,
with the effect thereby given to it, to
those who are not subject to the dis
qualifications which the act OF Con
gress imposes. The existing laws OF
the United States and of the Territory,
under which the election officers are
bound to perform their duties, must
include the act itself, which provides
tor their appointment and defines their
duties, and if they have not the right to
exact an oath different from that the
form OF which is given in the territorial
act, they must otherwise satisfy thera-
selves that persons offering to register
are free from the disqualification de-
fined in the act of Congress. In doing
so, they are of course required to exer-
else diligence and good faith in their
inquiries, and are responsible in dam
ages for reflections made without
reasonable cause, or mahciously.
In the two cases last referred to, the
allegations of the complaint show, not
only that the several plaintiffs were
legally entitled to be registered as vOt-
erS, but declare that the refusal OF the
registration officers to admit them 20
the list was wrongful and malicious.
The demurrers admit the plaintiffs
case, as thus stated, and therefore
ought to have been Oyerruled.
1t follows that the judgments in the
three cases in which Jesse j. Murphy,
Ellen G. Clawson and Hiram B. Claw
son, her husband, and James N. Bar
low are The respective plaintiffs, are
affirmed as to all the defendants: in
the two cases in which Mary Ann M.
Pratt and Mildred E. Randall and
Alfred Randall, her husband, are the
plaintiffs respectively, the judgments
in favor of the five defendants, Alex
ander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G.. L.
Godfrey, A. b. Carleton and j. r. Pet
tigrew are affirmed; and as to the de-
PENDANTS, E. d. Hoge, John S. LINDSAY
and Harmed Pratt, the judgments are
reversed, and as to them the cases are &.
with instructions to over
rule the demurrers, and for further
Azd 10 is so ordered.