The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-02-09
THE new POOH
The Document Prepared and
Signed by Them.
ONCE A POLYGAMISTAL ONE
The Names of Some Of the Persons Who VIII
Not be Allowed to Vote on
Monday Next.

Following IS the decision OF the reg1Stra-
ton officers in the cases taken under ad- |
visement. The opinion was reached Fri |
day and but for the perversity Of rank
partisans The HERALD would have givenit
to the public yesterday morning. Fri
day reporter Of this paper visited the Of
fees of the registrars two or three different
times. Mr. Morris was seen but said no
conclusion had been reached and he had no
idea when they would be. Later call was
made on Colonel Page and he was asked
for the privilege of copying the opinions.
He answered, however, that he knew moth
ing about it; that he wasn't advised as to
whether the registration officers had
reached any conclusions in those cases
or on the questions submitted to
them. And so no information
could be gained in regard to the matter. 1t
would appear that the Tribune editorial
rooms is the Office of these gentlemen and
that that sheet has a copyright on their
decisions. Their dockets, though presumed
to be public records, are evidently open to
favored few only. Well, the public no
doubt feel relief that their adjudication
| upon the rights of Otkers is ended Some
OF them may figure in court very con-
| spicuously, but not we apprehend in this
Before the boare of registrars of Salt Lake
| city, Utah.
In the matter Of the challenge Of D.
Webb VS.. b. Y. Hampton ct al.
These are cases in which tie right of de-
| PENDANTS to remain on the registry list of
Salt Lake city Is challenged On the ground
that they are polygamists. The evidence
shows that each OF the de fe..d ants has, at
some period since the passage of the anti
polygamy law of 1862, entered into the re-
llationship of bigamy or polygamy.
Section l of the act OF lo62 provides as
follows: every person having husband
or wife living who shall marry another
person shall be adjudged
guilty of bigamy," etc.
Man violates the law, and the law fixes
his status. The act of the individual con-
sists in the marrying, the operation of the
law in adiudging him a bigamist 1t is
true the Individual places himself by his
own act in antagonism to the law, but did
the law not step in and fix his status, no
such result would follow. In other words,
it is not the Individual but the law that
fixes his status.
Section s, of the Edmunds law, provides !:
''That no polygamist, 5igamist or any per
son cohabiting with more than enc woman
shall be entitled to vote.''
Section IA, of the Edmunds- Tucker act,
been convicted of any crime nnder this act
or who shall be a polygamist, or
who shall associate or cohabit polygam-
ously with persons of the other sex, shall
be entitled to vote"
In this section disfranchised persons are
|: classified. First-Those who have been
convicted, etc Second-Those who are
polygamists. Third-Tnose who associate
or cohabit polygamously with persons of
the other sex.
Now we think that no one will for an in
slant contend that a person convicted OF
the crimes enumerated could, by any act
on his own part, restore his franchise.
Not even life of penitence and disavowal
i. of his crime could change his condition.
y When he was convicted, the law stepped
in and disfranchised him, and nothing
, short'of the pardoning hand of the Presi
:, dent of the United States can restore him
to civil rights. This principle is too well
established to admit OF controversy.
Let US next consider the second class
Jo-wit, polygamists. The law defines the
;, term, and makes those who commit the ac1
guilty. This class does not include those
who have been tried and convicted, but
= merely those who have committed the ac
l. only. When the Individual has done The
act the law says he is polygamist Ir
what respect does the second class diffel
e from the first, other than that of intensity
e The status in both cases is fixed by ont
and the same law If, therefore, the ac
of disavowal will change the status in on,
case, why not in the other! Ii the propo
, sition that once convict always convic
= until pardoned, be true, then why no
the same rule in polygamy? II
'i one case the act leads to the disfranchise
ment, in the other the conviction. In tn
y Ramsey case, the Supreme court of tn
United States says that polygamist or biga
mi Stpan nn1u ha Cuph whom H.
has finally and fully dissolved, in som
effective manner, which they were no
called on to point out, such relationship.
We have been unable to find any decision
which points out THAT effective manner,
and are of the opinion that the point unde
t. consideration has never been adjudicated
The statute has prescribed way by whic
M the status of polygamist may be changed
~ that of amnesty by the President (sectio
'e z, Edmunds law, which in our opinion
the only manner in which it can be done
In the language of Chief Justice Zane
Amnesty is the remission of the const
lie quences of crime, and may be after as be
Of fore there is conviction" Bennett de
- cision.
Disfranchisement is the consequence
N, the crime of Iolygamy, and withou
OF amnesty the disability remains The Grim
It. of polygamy is censummated and, in fac
wholly included in marrying, having
wife living and undivOrced. The afte
act of living with or separate from Ii
wives does not in the least eject his status
ne In the language of the supreme cour
"The statue makes an express distinctio
ly between bigamists and polygamists, on tt
er one hand, and those who cohabit wit
A., more than one woman on the other.
The Ramsay case was decided under tt
Jaw Of March 90, 1882. The act of Marc
3, 1887, re-classifes the disabilities, an
adds the class which we designate
class one, to wit: Those who have bee
at convicted, etc.
ae Franchise is a privilege, not a right, ar
one must comply with all the precedel
conditions to entitle him to exercise tn;
first privilege. TO us the law of 1889 seen
very specific. Under that act, we are
the opinion that any person who has sine
the passage of the anti-polygamy law
lie 1862 violated that law, and who has n
been amnestied by the President of tt
United States, is polygamist or bigamis
and is not entitled to vote.
The challenges against the followi1
Nj named persons will be allowed and the
names ordered stricken from the lists:
As B. Y Hampton, Henry Puzey,
George F. Gibbs, Charles b. Taylor
Thomas F. Thomas, William Willes
OrSon F. Whitney, William Calder,
Elijah M. Weller, Austin Shipp,
mt David Walker, Jeter Clinton,
an Joseph D. Matthews, Alexander Lexington,
m, Francis Armstrong, Charles Balmforth,
" William B. Preston,
Done at Salt Lake citv this 9TH dav