The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-19
THE OPINION.
Teztof theSaprene Court
- Decision
IN THE COMMISSION SUITS.
The Marriage Relation
Oath Knocked Cold.
THE REGISTRARS LIABLE
THE REGISTRARS LIABLE
For Their Acts Who May Register
and Who May Not.
OCTOBER TERM, 1884.

4 H. . -
Appeals from the Supreme Court of tn
Territory of Utah.
Jesse j. Murphy, Appellant,
No. 1927. Us.
/ L. Godfrey, A. 3. Carleton, j. r. Pet
tigrew, Z. d. Hoge and Arthur Pratt
Mary Ann NJ. Pratt, Appellant,
No. 1928. .US.
Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G
tigrew, e. ID. Hoge and ohm S. Lind
say.
Mildred E. Randall and Alfred Randall
/ Appellants.
No. 1929. as.
| Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G.
| l.. Godfrey, A E. b. Carleton, J. r. Pet
tigrew, E. ID. Hoge and Harmed Pratt
Ellen C. Clawson and Hiram B. Claw.
son. Appellants.
| No. 1880. tUS. F
Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G
! l.. Godfrey, A. B. Carleton, J. r. Pet
tigrew, E. ID. Hoge and James 7
Little.
James NJ. Barlow, Appellant,
No. 1881. Us.
Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock. G
L. Godfrey, A. b. Carleton, j :. r. Pet
tigrew, e. ID. Hoge and Harmed Pratt
1. The Board of Commissioners appointed
for the Territory OF Utah in pursuance OF
sec. 8 of the act of Congress approved
March I'D 1882 entitled Gan act to amend
sec. $3.50 of the Revised Statutes of the Unit
ed States in reference to bigamy and for
other purposes (22 Stats. 30,) have no pow
er over the registration of voters or the con-
duct of elections. Their authority is limited
to the appointment of registration and cleo
ton officers, to the canvass of the returns
made by snch officers of election, and to the
issue of certificates of election to the per-
sons appearing by such canvass to be
elected.
2. The registration and election officers
thus appointed are required, until other
provisions be made by the Legislative As
sembly OF the Territory, to perform then.
duties under the existing laws of the United
States, including the act of March I'D, 1882,
and of the Territory, so far as not incOnsist-
ent Herewith.
8 As the Board of Commissioners had no
lawful power to prescribe conditions of reg
istratiOn or of voting, any rules of that char
acter promulgated by them to govern the
registration and election officers were null
and void; and as such rules could not be
pleaded by the registration officers as law
full commands IN justification of refusals to
register persons claiming the right to be
registered as voters, their illegality is no
ground of liability against the Board of
Commissioners.
t. The registration officers were bound to
register only such persons as, being quail
fled under the laws previously in force, and
offering to take the oath as to such qualifi-
cations prescribed by the territorial act of
1878, were also not disqualified BY the eighth
section of the act of Congress of March I'D
1882.
5. That section provides, as to males that
nOlVOaInISt hlRam1St
habiting with more than woman; and, as to
females, that no woman cOhabiting with
any polygamist, bigamist, or man cOhabiting
with more than onewoman, shall be entitled
to vote, and consequently, no such person Is
entitled to be registered as voter; and the
registration officer must either require such
disqualifications to be negatived by Il modi-
ication of the oath, the form of which is
given in the territorial act, or otherwise to
satisfy himself by due inquiry that such dis
qualifications do not exist; but which course
he is bound to adopt il is not necessary in
these cases to decide.
6. The plaintiffs in these actions seeking
to recover damages for being unlawfully de-
prlyed of their right to be registered as
voters, must alleSe in their declarations, as
matter of fact, that they were legally quail
fed voters, or, that allegation being omitted,
must allege all the facts necessary to show,
as matter of law, that they were qualified
voters; and to this end it is necessary that
they should negative all the disqualifications
pronounced by the law.
Z. a blgamlst or polygamist, in the sense
OF the eighth section of the act of March -
1882, is man whe, having contracted a
blgam0uS or pOlygamOus marriage, and be-
come the husband, at one time, of two or
more wives, maintains that relation and
status Mt the time when he offers to be re-
gistered as VOTER: aad this without ref
erence TO the question whether he was at
any time guilty of the offensc of bigamy or
pOlygamy, or whether any prosecution for
such Offense was barred by the lapse of
time; neither IS it necessary that he should
be guilty of poly gamy under the first section
of the act Of March ed, 1882. The eighth
section of the. act is not intended, and does
not operate as an additional penalty pre-
scribed for the punishment of the offence
of polygamy, but merely defines it as a dis
qualification of a voter. 1t is not, therefore
Objectionable as an er post fdcto law, and
has no retrospective operation. The dis
franchisement operates upon the existing
state and condition OF the person and not
upon past offence.
8. TWAS accordingly He'd
l. That as to the i've defendants below,
composing the Board of Commissioners
under the ninth section of the act OF March
I'D, 1882, the demurrers were rightly sus-
tanned, and the judgments are affirmed.
.. That, in the cases IN which Jesse Muir
ply and James NJ. Barlow respectively
were plaintiffs, they do not allege that they
time they offered 10 register, although they
deny that they were at that time liable to
criminal prosecution for polygamy or
and deny that they were cohabiting |
with more than one woman, and not show |
ing themselves to be legally qualified voters, |
the judgments on the demurrers as to all the |
defendants is affirmed.
5. That in the case in which Ellen c. !
Clawson, with her husband. is plaintiff,
as the declaration does not deny the dis |
qualification of one who is at the time CO I
na = with polygamist or bigan,ist. the (
Judgment as TO all the defendants is af-
irned.
4. That in the cases iii which Mary Ann
W. Pratt aud Mildred Il. Randall, with her
are the respective plaintiffs, as all
he disqualificatious are denied, and 1t is
alleged that the defendants, the registra
ion officers, wilfully and malicieusly re-
used to register them as voters, the judg-
nents as to Hogc and Lindsay in one, and
s 10 Hoge and Harmed Pratt in the other,
re reversed, and the causes remanded Tor