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

inuuuH' uNhtt llNs toNlus tht tneu
existing conditions Of AGE, residence
and citizenship, inorler 10 reglstration,
adds numerous other conditions o,rr.
ailng ~ civil disabilities, and incos-
pofaics tho whole In the oath Of eligi.
hllity II prcscrlbes.
Concerning election agencies, the
ninth section ofthe Edmunds law pro.
vides "That all the registration nnd
election Offices Of every deecrip.
iion In the Territory u Utah are
hereby declared vacant, aud each aud
every duty relating to the registration
OF voters, the conduct Of elections, the
receiving or rejection ~ votes, and the
canvas-ing hu1 returning OF the same,
aud Issuing u certificates OF other EVIL.
dences OF election la said Territory
shall be performed under the existing
laws Of the United States aud Of sail
Territory, by proper persons who shall
be- appointed 20 execute such oillccs
and perform such duties by board OF
i've persons, 10 be appointed by the
President, by and with III" consent Of
the Senate, provided, that such board
shall not exclndeany person otherwise
eligible 10 vote from the polls on nc.
count Of any opinion such person may
entertain ON tine subject OF bignmy Or
polyEamy, nor shall they refuse 10
count any such vote on account " the
opinion Of the porson on that subject"
| Under this section the Board OF
Commission has, from time 10 time,
appointed officers 70 succeed TO the
functions and titles u their prodcco.-
sors under the Territorial law, namely,
registrars u votou, Judges Of elections
and canvassrn Of tho election returns,
and, "a the Territorial law, ~ has been
remarked, combines with this section
Ia forming the election system of the
Territory, Il IA neodiul 10 consult each
In determining the validity Of any net
Of the Commission or Ut III appointees.
Recurring 10 the first section VI the
Morrill, law aud 20 the eighth section
Of the Eimunda law, u falls In the
order Of the discussion 10 state that
grave questions Oi constitutional law
have deem raised upon each. Fiat,
whether II was competent TO Congress
10 penalty inhihlt plural marriages In.
asmuch ~ some VI the MofmOns, nj
least, hold such marriages 10 10 n tunot
Of thelr religion? Second, whether II
was competent 10 Congress TO abolish
or hbridge, rs to such PERSONS, the righ,
OF suffrage ne they had heretofore ca.
Joyed II under the law?
The fret question came before the
supreme Court Of the United States.
The court, In considering u, among
other things, said! "ln our opinion,
tho statute Is within the power Of Con.
grcss. II i constitutional aud valid M
prescribing rule Of action for all those
residing in the Territories or other
places over which tho United States
have control. This being -, the only
question which remains " whether
those who make polygamy part Of
thnir religion are excepted from the
operation Of the statute. IL they are,
then those who DO not make polygamy
part Of their religious belief may bo
found guilty and punished, while those
who DO must be- acquitted and 20
free. This would be Introducing a new
element Into criminal law. Laws are
made for the government " actions,
aud while they cannot interfere with
mere religious belief aud opinion, they
may with practices So here, AZ law
for the organization Of society under
the exclusive dominion OF the United
States, II Ia provided that plural mar
riagcs shall not be- allowed. Can n man
excuse his practices u the contrary
because OF his religious belief To
permit this would be- ~ make the pros
fcssed doctrine u religious bohe, super.
ior 10 tho laws OF tho land, aud In effect
10 permit every citizen 10 become a Law
unto himself. Government could exist
only In name under such circumstan'
ccs. "-gs, u. ). y. Ds, q sequHtT.
This second question came before the
same court IN 1851, IN the ease OF
Murphy W. Ramsey and others. In
considering Il the court had occasion u
note the distinction between criminal
penalties and civil disabilities; also, e
recognize the natural AZ well AS The
legal capacity Of n polygamlBt 10 cease
10 bo one. Among other things, the
court said; "lhu counsel for the appel
liant In argument seems to question tht
constitutional power Of Congress TO pasi
tho uct-,ao far ~ II abridgcs the right
Of electors In this territory under pre-
viouB laws. But that question, W,
think, h no longer open TO discussion
| ha, passed the stage OF controversy
Into final Judgment.
Upon this construction, the statute i
not open 10 tho objection that 10 i an
a. pot Jaoto law. IL does not seek In
this section ~ aud by tho penalty o.
Acknowledgement, 10 operate as a pun
ishment upon any otiense at all.
at Is not, therefore, because th'
person has committed the oleuse oI
bigamy nj some previous time Ia viola
ton OF somu existing statute, and n sn
additional punishment for la commits
sion that he Is disiranchised by the acl
Of March 30, 1852; nor because he L
guilty Of the oilense rs defined and
punished by this terms Of that act; hui
because having ut some time entered
into n bigamous or polygamous relation
by marriage with second or thin
wife while the inst was living, he still
maintains II, ana has not dissolved It,
although for tho time being he restricts
actual cohabltatlOn 10 one.
"rhe dislfanchisemon operates on
tho existing state and condition Of the
person and not upon past oiiense. II
" therefore not Retrospective. Ill,
alone Is deprived Of his vote when he
oiibfa 10 register, " then actually co
hablting with more than onu woman,
Dlsiranchisement IL not prescribed as 0
penalty for being guilty Of the Grim,
and oiionse OF p0lygamy; for, as liza,
been said, that Odcnse consists In the
fact Of unlawful marriage aud tn,
prosecution against the offender Il
barred by the lapse OF three years.
"rhe words 'bigamisp anu 'polygam
isp evidently arc not usei In the sense
VI describing those who entertain thu
opinion that blgamy and pOlygamy
ought to he tolerated NJ a practice mol
incompatible with tho good order Of
society, the welfare of the race, aud !