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


:. made by the legislative assembly Of tn
v Territory, to perform all the duties re
lating to the registration of voters
= "under the existing laws OF tn
E United States and of said Ter
/ ritory. nT The board are no
t authorized to prescribe rules for gov
, serning them In the performance o
2 these duties, much less to prescrlb'
| any qualifications for voters as con
{ dition of registration. The statutor.
powers of the board are limited to The
, appointment of the registration ant
election officers, authorized to act il
, the first instance under the law uutl
provision is made by the Territorial
Legislature for the appointment OF
their successors, and to the canvass OF
the returns and the issue of certificates
OF eleetiOn"to those persons who, be-
, ing eligible for such election shall ap-
pear to have been lawfully elected
The proviso in the section does indeed
declare THAT said board of five per-
sons shall not exclude any person
otherwise eligible to vote from the
polls on account of any opinion such
person may entertain on the subject OF
bigamy or polygamy," but, in the alb
sense OF any general and express power
over the subject Of declaring the quail
tication of voters, it is not a Just in
ference, from the words of this pro-
vlSo. that it was intended to admit by
implication the existence of any au-
thOrity in the board to exclude from
Registration or. the right to vote, any
Iperson whatever, or in any manner to
define and declare what the qualifica-
tions of voter shall be. The prohibi-
ton against excluding any person from
the polls, for the reason assigned,
must be construed, with the additional
Injunction, "noT shall they refuse to
count any such vote on account of the
opinion of the person casting it on the
subject of bigamy or polygamy," to
apply to the action of the board in can
vasSing the returns of elections, made
to them by the officers holding such
elections; or, if it includes more, it is
to be taken as the announcement of a
| general principle to govern all officers
concerned in the registration of voters
or the conduct of elections.
1t follows that the rules promulgated
by the board, prescribing the form of
oath to be eXacted of persons Offering
to register as voters, and which con-
stitute the directions under which it is
alleged the registration officers acted,
were without force, and no effect can
be given to them. It cannot be alleged
that they had the effect in law of pre-
venting the registration of the plain
tiffs, for the registration officers were
not bound 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 appointed by
them of principal and agent, so as to
make the members of the former liable
for what the latter may have illegally
therefore, no connection in law be-
tween the acts of the board as charged
and the wrongs complained of.
The judgment in favor of the defen-
dants, composing the Board of Com
missiOners, upon their demurrer, there
fore, was rightly rendered.
The cases, as to the other defen-
dants, the registration officers, stand
on different principles. If they were
merely ministerial officers. and if they
have deprived the respective plaintiffs
of their right to be registered as voters,
in violation of law, they may be re-
spOnsible in an action for damages.
Whether they are so must depend, in
the first instance, not upon what they
have done or omitted, but upon the
question whether the plaintiffs have
severally shown themselves entitled to
VI.
were Illegally deprived.
And in entering upon the cOnsidera-
ton Of this point it is to be observed,
in the first place, that the pleader has
not in any of the complaints, alleged,
as matter of fact, that the plaintiff was
a legally qualified voter, entitled to be
registered as such. He has preferred,
in each case, with variations to suit
the circumstances, to aver the exist
ence of specific enumerated qualitica-
tionS, and the absence of specific and
enumerated disqual;ficatiOns, leaving
it to be inferred, as a matter of law,
that the plaintiff was Il legally qualified
voter and entitled to be registered as
such. That legal inference is neces- /
sary to complete the case as stated; |
and the sufficiency of the statement
must depend on whether all the posi-
tive qualifications required by law are
alleged to have existed, and all the
disqualifications affixed by law have
been negatived.
To ascertain thiswe have to compare
the allegations 0fthe complaint in each
case with the acquisitions of the law,
and, by construction, to determine
whether they conform.
80 Tar as the requirements of the law
existing at the TINA of the passage
OF the act of March 22d, 1852, and
which continued in force concurrently
with that, are concerned, there is no
difficulty. Each of the plaintiffs is
shown to have been q qualified voter,
unless disqualified by the latter act.
The only question is, whether they have
brought themselves within the mean |
ing of that act. The language on
which the questions arise occurs in the !
Sth section, and is: "That no poly
gamiSt, bigamist, or any person CO.
habiting with more than one woman,
and no woman cohat iting with any of |
the persons described as aforesaid in |
this section,n ETC., that is, with any /
polygamist, bigamist, or person. CO.
habiting with more than one woman,
shall be entitled to vote at any election
held in the Territory. H2s. ..al
In the case In which Mary Ann III. /
Pratt is plaintiff, she clearly excludes
herself from the disqualifcations of
the act. She alleges in her complaint
that she is not and never has been a
bigamist or polygamist; that she is
the widow of OrSon Pratt, Sem, who l
died prior to the 22nd day of March,
1882, after continuous residence in
said Territory of more than thirty
years, and that since the death of her I,
,aid husband she has NOT c0hahitpd \