Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-10

0
continue the condition. The Supreme
Court holds u tie idea that there must
he recognition. The question Of
good faith will he for the Jury n deter.
mine. The section regarding amnesty
OF pardon does not seem 10 have amy
connection with the question. Tho
parties may obtain amnesty and yet
continue the pDlygamous relation.
The conclusions 10 be drawn from the
provisions Of the statutes quoted and
from their authoritative exposition
aud application by the courts, seem to
he
Flpt-rhat Acknowledgement ~ no
part Of the penalty annexed 10 any
sexual onense committed In violation
Of those provisions.
SecOnd-rhat such penalties consist
solely Of nnc and imprisonment, or Of
both.
Thlrd-As consequcnce, that dis.
franchlscmunt IL merely an electoral
regulation aud exclusion.
Foufth-That the punishment In
illcled for Inhibited criminal acts cx-
tends only 10 such person. who being
otherwise eligible 70 be- rcglstcred, had
entered into tho polygamOus relation
and actually continue IL, or TO whom.
soover, although protected by lapse Of
time from prosecution A. n polygamist
or blgamist, still cOhablts or associates
polygamously or bigamously with per.
sous ol the other sex; Or 10 whomsoevet
has been convicted Of any Inhibited
sexual ohensc ami has not been AIN.
nestled or rardoncd. On the contrary,
whoever Il not 20 disfranchiscd, being
otherwise eliglblo thereto, may be re-.
glsiered and vote.
Flfth-Any person actually maintain.
ingthc hlgRmouso rpolygnmous relation
NJ the time when he otiors his name for
registration Ia by such relation dis.
qualified 10 be registered, or TO vote or
hold office, or perform Jury service, and
that although he may have formed
such relation before thcre was any law
against II.
Proceeding on these conclusions Of
law and fact judicially determined,
the Commission has from time 10 time
prepared circulars advisory Of them
and caused them 10 be printed nni H..
sued 10 the registration aud election
/ officers.
This Is an important practical ques.
ton.
Answering II, we are gratiflcd TO say
that generally they have been, cspeci-
ally IN the rural districts, while, We
regret 10 say, that they have not al.
ways been ln some Of tho larger cltles.
! Particularly In the latter, not lnfre.
l quently, according 10 what seems 10 be-
trustworthy reports, registrars have
denied rcgistratlon 70 eligible persons,
] or have stricken the names OF such per.
sous from the regiatry simply upon the
ground that they had, alta former timo,
contracted plural marriages and must
/ therefore unavOllably continue 20 be-
pOlygamists until death, pardon Dram.
ncaty comes 10 relieve them. In this
way the law and H. Judicial exposition
10 the contrary were oiilclously over
ruled In one or more precincts Ia Salt
Lake City, while the act was attempted
| 10 be Justified by different version Of
both. This version implicitly, II not IN
terms, denies the legal or natural capa.
city Of the poiyRamlst 90 cease 20 be
one, or his capacity, mentally, mOtally
or physically, for sexual reformation.
II alphabetically holds that once poly.
gamist always polygamist, unies.
death, pardon or amnesty intefvencs.
IL damns the unfortunate alike II he
does or don't.
In another instance, Il appeared IN
the Gaze OF n contested election brought
before Justice Anderson Of one Of the
district courts, that persons had been
improperly denied registration or that
their names had hcon Improperly
stricken from the registry aud that the
votes n such persons had been i'm.
properly refused, and, In the same
CASE, II appeared, that pcrsonators Of
othun hal been knowingly permitted
10 vote. Indeed such was the cutlery OF
complaint that the Commission, deslr.
ing to obvi,tc u, invited the registrar
In Salt Lake city IN personal inter.
view nj its Office and, among other,
issued the following, July ~, 1890;
"NheTeaA, Complaints have been
made 10 the Utah Commission by per.
sons who claim TINT they ARE citizens
Of the Territory 0f Utah AMI have been
residents OF their respective counties
the required length u time TO be regis.
tered voters, that have been registered
heretofore and have regularly voted In
the annual elections for Territorial aud
county officers, that their names with
out any fault OF theirs have been etfick
GA oil aud do not appear upon the regis
trailon list for the ensuing August
election, and that they are not disfran'
chised by any act OF Congress,
Therefore, In the opinion OF the
Commission, whenever II appears that
the name " a voter has been omitted
from the registration list without fault
ON his part, and such voter u not Ills.
franchised by nny net Of Congress,
the name Of such voter should
| Of right be reln-tatcd by the deputy
registrar Of tho proper precinct aud he
he allowed 10 vote at the ensuing cleo.
tlon.v
The source OF these abuses lies ia
part Ia the restricted power OF the
Commission, which, as n matter o.
law and fact IL established by the Su.
preme court OF the United States, In
Murphy vs.liamsey and Others, supra
In that caae the court said: "rho niuth
section Of tho act Of March %, 1852,
providing for the appointment and
prescribing the duties and powers Of
the board, shows that they have no
functions whatever IN respect 10 the
registration OF voters, except the ap.
pointmeut OF officers Ia place Of those
previously authorized, whose offices
are by that section Of tho law declared
vacant, And the persOns appointed 10
succeed them are not subject TO the
discretion anu control Of the board but
are required, until other provision bt
made by the Legislative Assembly ol
the Territory 10 make the required re-.
gistration OF Voters"-under the exist.
ing laws OF tho United States and OF
said Territory. Tho statutory powers
Of tile board arc limited 70 the appoint.