The Dispatch. [volume] (Provo City, Utah) 1891-1895, 1891-06-13
1T WAS NOT RANDOLPH TUCKER

IT WAS NOT RANDOLPH TUCKER.
If there is anything more debasing
than the spectacle of a politician de-
liberately lying to win his point, we
don t know Of it. If we are to wage a
political fight in this Territory on
party lines, by all means let us be fair
and not attempt to take the advantage
c. the uniformed. Our reasons for
1, king this way is on account of the
p. gram being carried out 10y the Re-
publicans to make the people of this
Territory believe that it was RAN
DOLPH TUCKER, or the Democratic
party, that robbed the women Of Utah
Of the franchise. This was the atti-
tude Of JOHN NJ. ZANE in Spanish
Fork on Tuesday night, and it was
the assertion made by Judge SAXEY in
this city a few days ago, in answer to
a question by VIM. d. ROBERTS, who
took the franchise from the women of
Utah?'' Let us look at the history of
this thing:
On the Sth day of December, 1885,
Senator EDMUNDs introduced a bill
IS. l0), to amend the measure he had
succeeded in having passed three years
previous, known as the EDNIUNDs law.
This bill, which we know as the Ed
NUNDs-TUCKER law, was read twice
and sent to the judiciary committee.
On December 31st the chairman of
this committee, Senator EDMUNDs,
reported back the bill, ''fayorablY and
without amendment" The bill was
then placed on the calendar, and on
the 5th Of January, 1886, it came up
for debate. The very first thing that
was done was motion 10y one of the
Senators to amend the bill by striking
out section Z, which reads as follows:
SEC. THAT it shall not be lawful
for any female to vote at any election
hereafter held in the Territory of Utah
for any public purpose whatever, and
no such vote shall be received or
counted or given effect in any manner
whatever; and any and every act of
the Legislative Assembly of the Terri
tory of Utah providing for and allow
ing the registration or voting of fe
males is hereby annulled.
The motion was strongly opposed
by Senator EDMUNDs, and among
other arguments he used in favor of
taking away from the women of Utah
the franchise, were these:
1t is to relieve the Mormon women
of Utah from the slavehood of being
obliged to exercise a political function
which is to keep her in state of deg
radiation; it is to diminish the voting
power Of this hierarchy. We do not
propose TO annul the voting that the
women of Utah have done hitherto.
We only propose to say that for the
time being they shall not vote any
more. 1t does not disturb any vested
right. unless it is d vested right in a
Territory to vote according to the Ter
ritorial law when Congress has not
yet approved that law, but now pro-
poses te disapprove it.
On January 9Th the Senate renewed
the debate Oh the bill, and on vote
being called for on the motion to strike
out section 7, proposing to rob TIE
women of Utah of the franchise, there
We're IL in favor Of the motion and SO
against
On January Sth the bin passed the
Senate, and foW days later was sent
to the House and referred to the com
mittee on judiciary. 1t was here that
RANDOLPH TUCKER saw the bill for
the first time, that is, so far as we have
any record Of
On June Sth, Congressman OATES,
in behalf of RANDOLPH TUCKER.
chairman of the committee on judi
ciary, reported upon the bill, but re-
commencing the passage of a substi-
tute, which Was ordered to be printed
and placed on the calendar This sub
stitute, however, was not changed so
far as the section providing for the
distranchisement of the women of
Utah was concerned. That part of
the bill remained intact, just as Sena-
tor EDMUNDs had prepared it in the
first place, and before RANDOLPH
TUCKER ever saw the bill. This fact
cannot be controverted, no matter
how much our Republican friends
would try.
On January u, 1887, the House went
INTO a discussion Of the bill. No soon
er had the bill been read and discus
sion invoked, than Representative
LoNG arose and moved to strike out
.he DISTINGUISHING clause. Supporting
LoNG came EZRA b. TAYLOR. who
said he was ''pained to find such a pro-
vision in the bill, - asserting that for
4 long time female suffrage has pre-
vailed in Utah, with no known evils |
with it. This bill, said he.
strikes that down without any com
)laint as to the manner in which it
las been exercised, and without any
allegation of danger in its future exer-
Use. l am appalled, at the first sug-
,estion Of taking the election fran
hise from a considerable class of per-
ons accustomed to its use. VIII the
PRECEDENT be invoked hereafter? and,
f SO, in what direction? Who can
ell?"
RIsDEN f. BENNETT, of North Car
lima, protested against the passage of
he bill in most patriotic manner,
md when he reached the disfranchise-
nent clause, he said:
Ii this were new proposition |
should support it. believe in the in