The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-01
"0NCE A POLYGAMIST, ALWAYS A POLYG-
AMIST.n

"A lew registrars and some judges of cleo
tons have taken the position that il a man
has ever been in polygamy, he remains a
polygamlst, IN the sense of the statutory
election oath, and cannot vote
We desire to call the attention of those
officials TO the plain language of the su-
preme court of the United States in it's de-
clslon In the MURPHY case, found at page IA
OF volume ia, United States supreme court
reports.
The wrong complained of was that the
plaintiffs, MURPHY, BARLOW and others,
were wrongfully deprived of the elective
franchise:
The court said
IL is not, therefore, because the person has
committed the offenSe of bigamy or polygamy,
at some previous time, in violation of some ex-
listing statute, and as an additional punishment
for its commission, that he Is DISTINGUISHED by
the act of Congress Of March %, 1852; nor be-
cause he is guilty Of the oifense as defined ana
punished by the terms of that act; but because.
having at some time entered into bigamous or
polygamous relation by marriage with Sec
ond or third wife while the first was living,
ne stu maintains IL and has not dissOtCed it, al
though for the time being he restricts actual CO.
naDltatlon to but one. He might in fact abstain
from actual cohabitation with all, and be still as
much as ever bigamist or polygamist. He can
only cease to be such when he has finally and
fully dissolved in some effectual manner which
we are not called on here to point out, the very
relation OF husband to several wives which
constitutes the forbidden status he has previ-
ously assumed.
The Acknowledgement. operates upon the ex-
listing state and co, dition of the person and not
upon past offense.
X
It's therefore, not retrospective He aloue
Is deprived of his vote who, when he offers to
register, is then in the state and condition OF a
Dlgamist or polygamist, or is then actually &C.
hablting with more than one woman
1t is not, therefore, because man has
violated the law of 1862 or any other stat
ute forbldding polygamy, but because,
having married polygamously, he maintains
his polygamous relations with more than
one wife at the time he offers himself for
registration, that he is DISTINGUISHED. If
he has dissolved that relation Tin some
effective MANNER" no matter when it may
nave pSSu dSsULlSu, ue IS u QuailneQ voter,
with the qualification, of course, that he
possesses the other statutory require
ments
Now, how can the polysamous relation
be effectively dissolveds
Certainly by the death of the polygamous
wife; certainly by her marriage to another
person; certainly by her acceptance of a
church divorce; certainly by a separation
dating back number Of years, where such
separation is known to be due to incom-
patibility or to other causes than the invol-
untary compulsion of the EDMUNDs law.
We believe there is no question that dis
solution of a void polygamous marriage re-
quires no higher proof than that there has
been an actual and bona tide separation
with no intention to resume cohabitation.
Peoples party voters and judges of cleo
ton should insist on this construction.