Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-02-08
THE REGISTRARS DECIDE,
They Override The Law and The
u. S. Supreme Court.

These are cases In which the rirb
OF defendants to remain on n,
registry list OF Salt Lake CITY h
challenged on the ground that they
are polygarnists. The evidenc,
shows that each Of the defendant,
has, at some period since the mass
age Of the anti-poIygamy law O
1867, entered into the RELATIONSHIP
OF bigamy or polygRmy.
Section l of the act Of 1862 pro.
vides as follows: every person
having n husband or wife livinr
who shall marry another person
shall be adludged
guilty Of bigamy,o etc.
Man violates the law, and the
law fixes his status. The act of the
individual consists in the marrying.
the operation of the law in adiudg.
ing him a bigamist. Ii is true the
individual places himself 10y his
own act in antsgonism TO the law.
but did the law not step in and fix
his status, no such result would fol-
low. In other words, It is not the
individual but the law that fixes his
status.
Section Of the Edmunds law
Provides "rhat no polygamist,
bigamlst or ans person cohabiting
with more than one woman :
shrli Re entitled ts vote:,
sectiUh 23ot LIS Hdii,und.- Tucker
act provides as follows: aNo person
who has been convicted OF any
crime under this act or who
shall be polygamist, or who shall
associate or cohabit polygamously
with persons of the ether sex, shall
be entitled to votes
In this section djsfrancbised per-
sons are classified. Fist-Those
who have been convicted, etc.
Second-Those, who are polygam-
ists. Tiilrd-TlioSe who associate OF
cohabit polygamousiy with persons
OF the other sex. .4s
Now We think that no one will for
an instant contend that n person
who has been convicted Of the crimes
enumerated could, by any act on
his own part, restore his franchise.
Not even life OF penitence and
disavowRl Of his crime could change
his condition. When he was con-
victed, the Law stepped in and dis
franchised him, and nothing shor;
Of the pardoning hand of the Presi
dent Of the United States can restor,
him TO civil rights. This principl.
is too well established to admit OF
controversy.
Let us next consider the second
class, to wit, polyganists. The law
defines The term, and makes those
who commit the act guilty. Thu
class. does not include those who have
been tried and con victed, but merely
those who have committed the aci
only. When the individual has
done the act, the law says he is =
poiygamist, In what respect does
the second class differ from the first.
other than that OF intensity? The
status in both cases is fixed by one
and the SAME law. IL therefore, the
act Of disavowal will change the
status In one case, why not in tn.
other. IL the proposition that once
. convict alwaysa convict until par
toned, lie true, then why not |
The same rule in polygamy? In
1ne case the act leads TO the dis
reimbursement, in the other the con
viction. In the Ramsey case, thu
supreme Court Of the United State
ny that a polygamist or bigamist
can only cease TO be such when he
mas finally aud fully dissolved, in
'ome effective manner, which they /
we're not called on to point out, such |
We have been unable to find /
my decision which points out "that
Effective Manner" aud are of the
opinion that the point under eonsid-
ration has never been adjudicated.
The statute has prescribed n way by /
which the status Of n polygamist
nay be changed, that Of amnesty by /
he President lSec. Z, Edmunds /
I4awl, which in our opinion is the
,nly manner in which il can lie
lone. In the language Of CHIEF
Justice Zane, "Amnesty is the re-
mission Of the consequences of a
rhine, and may be after rs befor,
here is n conviction" Bennett
iecision.
Disfranchisement is the conse-
Iuence Of the crime OF polygamy.
ind without amnesty the disability
'emains. The crime Of polygamy
S consummated and, in fact, wholly
Included In the act Of marrying.
having wife living and undivor
ed. The after act Of living with or
from his wives does not in
he least effect his status. In the
anguage Of the Supreme Court.
THE statute makes an express dis
inction between bigamists and
yolygamists, on the one hand, aud
hose who cohabit with more than
me woman on the other.
The Ramsay case was decided
lnder the law Of March %, IsS2.
The act Of March 3, 1885,, re-classifies
he disabilities, and adds the class
which We designate as class one, 10
Wit; Those who have been con-
-icted, etc.
Franchise Is q privilege, not n
light, and one must comply with all
he precedent conditions to entitle
lin to exercise that privilege. To
is the law Of 1857 seems very
pecific. Under that act, we are
4 the opinion that any person who
las since tho passage Of the anti
Law 81 1859 violated that
aw, and who has not been amnes-
led by the President of the United
states, is a polygamist or bigamist,
md is not entitled to vote.
The challenges against the follow
ng named persons will be allowed
md their NAMES ordered stricken |
rom the lists: lsr
J. Y. Hampton, Henry Pusey.
;eorSe Z. Gibbs, Charles D. Taylor,
Thomas 2. Thomas, William wilie..
lrson y. Whitney. William Calder,
David Walker. Jeter Clinton
Joseph ID. Matthews. Alexander Lexington.
-rancis Armstrong, Charles Balmfsrih.
William b. Preston,
Done at Salt Lake City this 9TH |
lay Of February, 1890.
HIS. MCCALLUN,
II. ID. WINTERS,
JOSEPH II. NORRIS,
Board Of Registrars, Salt Lake
city, Utah.
Thus the self-styled Board OF
Registration" have disregarded the
aw and the decisions Of the courts
n order toaccumpiish their designs.
In the Fourth precinct the follow
ug list of 80 nameshss been stricken
II the registration lists by r. ID.
Winters, for various reasons:
,dwin Cutler. - David Christensen,
lien r. Cutler. VIM. Calder,
Ames R. Biackhaui. Joseph Christensen. |
Gorge W. Bankhead, Moses Cardivell.
Gorge Anderson, Peter W. Nielsen,
fired Anderson, John e.. Peterson,
hristiAn Jensen, Richard smythe,
Gorge Y. Gibbs. Henry PuKey,
homas Higham, Frank Stephenson,
/. Y. Hampton. Thomas A. Th1riey,
: L. Hampton, James =. SHELTON,
ohm Helquisf, Charles b. Taylor.
har1aa EeIAa Thnu1as Il