Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-03-24

I 4
L randall, ~ere Clearly deprived Of
theiE right 10 registration vithout an.
ihosifF OF law, since By their aIIsSs-
tons they exclude themselves from dis
q1AiIncatlous Of the act of l5S2 EfBen
Caawson, Jesse J. Murphv and James
Barlow. On the other hand. we're. The
eoart holds. inetadai in tie disoualifi.
cations OF the set, and had no r1aht TO
REGISTRATION In reaching These con
es0sao1s tie court in its OPINION makes
an elaborate review Of tn act az IsS9
TOT t1e purpose of giving construction
20 some of its provisions, and sb0winO
hoS they apply to present CASES By
that act the coart holds that II i made
tie duty of registration officers 10 see
that persons Offering 20 register are free
from the dlsqaaliiicstions defined there
In. In 10 doing they are 20 exercise
diligence and good faith IN their in
quirtes, al are responsible in rigmao-a
Tor reIscttons made without reasonable
cause or DaIieioosiy. In the cases of
Mary Ann Pratt and Mildred E, Ran
dali. above referred to, the allegations
OF the complaint not only show that
complaiRants we're legally entitled 10 De
registered as voters, bat declare that
the refusal Of tbs registration officers
20 admit them TO the test vas
wrongful aud malicious. Demurrsrs
admit the case As thus stated and
should, therefore, have been overruIed.
In conclusion. Justice Matthews, who
delivers the opinion Of the eourt, says
with reference to the coustitnsionaiity
OF the above mentioned act "Coun-
sci for appellants in the agreement
seem TO quF stion the constitutionality
OF the poser 20 pass the act Of March
y. 1852, 80 far a. IL abridees the rights
of electors in the Territory under pre-
vioas iaws- Bat that question 10, w.
think, no longer open 10 discussion. II
has passed beyona the stage of contro.
vsrsy into the final Judgment of the
people. The United States as the SOW
ereign owners Of tbs national terrific
mes have supreme power over them
and their inhabitants il the exercise of
this sovereign dominion. They are
represented by the Government OF the
United States, to whom all powers of
tue goverumen. over that of the subject
have bsea delegated, subject only to
such retriciions as are expressed in the
constitution, or necessarily implied 10
It's terms or purposes and objects. The
power itself in ordaining q government
for the Territories and the people who
inhabit them, all discretion which be.
longs 10 the legislative power is vested
In Congress, and that extends beyond
any controversy to j terminine by Law
from time 20 time the form of local
governments IN a particular Territory
and the qualification OF those who shall
administer IL. II rests With Congress to
say whether IN given case any of the
people resident ia Territory shall par
tioipate IN the election of Its officers or
tbs making Of It's lave. and IL therefore
may take from them any right of suf
fraRe IL may have previously conferred,
or at any time modify or abridge il as
Il may deem expedient. The personal
and civil rights of inhabitants of the
territories are secured to them as to ali
other citizens by the principles of cen
stitutionai liberty, Which restraia all
the agencies OF the government, State
and national. Their political rights are
franchises which they hold as priv
ieQea IN the legislative discretion of the
Congress of the United States. Ii We
ooneede that this discretion in Con-
Rreas is iinited by the obvious purposes
for which 1t was conferred and that
these purposes are satisfied by meas
ares which prepare the people of the
territories 30 become citizens of States
in tbs Union, still the conclusion can.
not be averted that the act OF Congress
on the question Ia clearly within that
in Z. hcatlon, for certainly 20 legislation
can be supposed to be more wholesome
and necessary in forming free self
governing commonwealth. ID to take
rank as one Of the coordinate
States Of the Union than that which
seeks TO establish ID on the basis of the
idea that the family a. consisting In and
spEinein2 from q union for life of one
nian Rnd one w0man ia the holy state
of matrimony. the sure foundation of
all that Is stable and noble in our civili-
.tion, the best guarantee of that rev
erent morality which il the source Of
all bauefieieut progress in social aud
political improvement aud to this end
no means are more directly and imme-
diately suitable than those provided by
this act, which endeavors TO withdraw
all political influence from those who
are practically hostile TO its attain
ments.
The judgment of the court below in
the cases of Jesse j. Murpay and Ellen
@. and Hiram b. Oiswsdn and j. III.
Barlow, are affirmed as TO all the de-
fendaats below and Appelees here. In
the cases Of Mary Ann Pratt and Nil
dred y. and Alfred Randall, judgments
are affirmed IS 20 all defendants and
appelees, except E. ID. Hogs, John s.
Lindsay and Harmon Pratt. As 10
them, the judgments are reversed and
the Cases are remanded with directions
20 overruls the demarrers. Judge
Field dissented from parts OF the
opinion.