The Dispatch. [volume] (Provo City, Utah) 1891-1895, 1891-06-13

clJlZenS IN Jnelr states. IN GneiT lerrl
tories, in their municipalities, to es
tablish, order, and control their own
domestic institutions, and believing il
that with all the earnestness of reli.
gious conviction, believing that and
feeling that, L would not raise my
voice against the action of the people
of this Territory in giving suffrage tC
its female residents. We have
adopted the suffrage Of the pleW
in this country as the fixed policy
of our government, and the sooner
gentlemen recognize that the suffrage
of the plow is Gods gospel applied tc
the ballot the better it will be fol
them"
This Democratic talk won the ap-
plause of the whole House.
The discussion on the bill was
closed by RANDOLPH TUCKER, chair
man of the judiciary committee, but
not one word did he utter in reference
to the section disfranchising the women
of Utah. He supported the bill, it is
true, but so far as this clause is con-
cerned he remained silent.
The bill, as amended by the sub
stitute, passed its third reading in the
House on January IL, 1887, and: the
next day was received in the Senate
Here Senator EDMUNDs fought the
amendments that had been made i'll
the House, and on his motion the Sen.
ate disagreed to the bill and Confer
ence committee was appointed, con-
sisting of Senators EDMUNDs, IN.
CALLS and PUGH. This committee
met a similar committee from the
House, consisting of Representatives
TUCKER, COLLINS and TAYLOR. Be.
fore the bill was discussed, however
RANDOLPH TUCKER withdrew from
the committee, and Congressman
HAMMOND was appointed in his place.
This accounts for the absence of the
name Of RANDOLPH TUCKER at the
end of the report.
1t must be remembered that the
section providing for the disfranchise-
ment of the women of Utah remained
unchanged from the time Senator ED.
MUNDs wrote it before the bill was
first introduced in the Senate, to the
time the measure became law.
Herce the assertions made by JOHN
NJ. ZANE and Judge SAXEY are false
and the people should not be gulled.
What we have here given are mat
ters of history. They can be found in
the printed records of Congress, and
in the face of these facts it is to be
hoped our Republican friends will not
further seek to foist the objectionable
act of robbing the women of Utah of
the franchise upon the Democratic
party.
If the Republican party had been
the friends of the Mormon people as
ZANE and SANEY and even JOHN
HENRY Smith would have the people
believe, why is it that more of them
did not vote against the passage of the
EDMUNDs-TUCKER bill than they didf
They had it in their power to kill The
bill before it ever left the House.
Then why did they not use that
power? The Senate at the time was
Republican, there being 42 Republi-
cans against 33 Democrats? So that
the Republican Senators could have
prevented the bill from ever reaching
the eyes of the House had they SO
chosen. But what are the facts? The
vote shows that Notwithstanding the
majority the Republicans had in
the Senate, but one of that
number was man enough to come
out and say that so far as his
vote was concerned he would cast it in
the defense of the suffrages of the peo-
pie of Utah. This one man was Sena-
tor HOAR. In the House but one Re
publican voted against the bill. 1t
was JAMES E. O;HARA.
That our readers may know the
names of the men who did vote against
the passage of the EDMUNDs-TUCKER
law, we herewith append them, with
also the political affiliation of each
one: