The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-01-10
A Distinction With a Difference.


! A great many comments are being
made by the press on the amnesty procla-
nation, and there still seems to be some
darkness of mind over it's full signifioa-
ton. THE HERALD has said sufficient to
make the matter clear to most people,
and will not thresh over old straw for
those who think there is q kernel of grain
left in it. But for the benefit of those
who do not seem to see the difference be-
tween the cases of persons who are par
doned for criminal offenses, and of those
who are barred from the exercise of the
franchise through civil disabilities, we
will briefly explain once more.
The disqualifcations under which GER
tain citizens of Utah still exist, are in the
same category as those of minority in age
or non-residence for given time. The
same as the provision under the Ed
MUNDs-TUCKER act that only male citi-
zens in Utah shall vote. By the opera
tions of that law the following described
persons cannot vote or hold Office or sit
on juries, to-wit: Those who are not
citizens of the United States; those
who, whether citizens or not, are females;
citizens who are under twenty-one years
OF age; those who have not resided in the
territory six months and in the precinct
one month Immediately preceding the
date of registration; those who will not
swear that they will obey the Constitution
and laws of the United States and especi-
ally the acts of Congress in relat on to
certain offenses, and that they will not,
directly or indirectly, aid or abet, coun-
sci or advise any other person to commit
said crimes; those who have been con-
victed of such offenses; those who are
bigamists or polygamists or who associate
polygamously with persons of the other
sex.
These disqualifcatIons are all on the
same plane. These are not affected by
amnesty or pardon. No person who is a
bigamist or polygamist at the time he
offers to register can legally vote, any
more than if he were a nonresident, or
under twenty-one years of age or would
not take the oath. And it must be clear
to all that unless he takes the oath he
cannot register or vote.
Cases brought forward by some of our
contemporaries have 40 relevance to this
question. There is no dispute as to the
complete restoration OF civil rights to
person amnestied, who lost those rights
as a consequence OF his conviction. But
no amnesty can create or set aside statu-
tory qualification for voting, any more
than it could make an alien citizen, or
minor of legal age, or non resident
resident, or woman male citizen.
This is not a party question. It is folly
to try to make it appear so. It is not a
matter of clemency, but OF law. While
the disqualification exists thrust operate.
If a court of competent jurisdiction will
make new ruling defining the terms
bigamist and polygamist, contrary to that
on record as final, the conditions Will be
changed. The amnesty does not touch
them or make any approach to them, and
does not even extend a pardon to pc sons
guilty Of bigamy or polygamy or any
thing but unlawful cohabitation, and
that only to persons liable to criminal
who have not violated the law
since November 1, 1880.
Those who accuse THE HERALD OF
wanting to belittle the scope Of the am