The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-07-22
FILING REGISTRATION oArHs.

In issuing their circular of information
for deputy registrars, the Utah Commits
sion appear to have overlooked an I'M
portant provision of the law in relation
to the affidavits of the voters. They in
struct the registrars that the oaths of
registered voters Immediately after the
day of election are to be delivered to
the clerk OF the probate court of the
proper county. That is in accordance
with the former instructions of the Com
mission.
But is that in conformity to the law?
Perhaps they have not become aware that
there has been ruling on this point by
the Supreme Court of Utah. 1t was
rendered probably during their absence
from the territory, SO it may have escaped
their notice.
The EDMUNDs act provides, in section
"a, that ssSuch registration officer is
authorized to administer said oath or al
flrmation; and all such oaths or affirma-
tons shall be by him delivered to the
clerk OF the probate court of the proper
county, and shall be deemed public rec
ords therein -
The purpose Of this is clearly that there
may be comparison between those af-
firmations and the registration lists, made
by any citizen interested in an honest
election. And this would be OF little use
unless made before the election, and in
time to make objections to persons whose
names are found on the lists and are be-
lieved TO be unlawfully registered.
The laws of Congress provide that cleo
tions in this territory shall be conducted
according to the statutes of Utah and of
Congress. Under section four of chapter
twelve, the laws of 1892 amending the
Compiled Laws provide that the oaths or
affirmations shall be delivered to the clerk
OF the probate court on or before the
! second Monday in October.
That ought to settle the matter. The
election does not take place until the
Tuesday after the first Monday in Noyem-
Der. If the oaths are not filed until the
following day it will be contrary to law,
and the very purpose for which they are
to be flied will be frustrated.
There was formerly considerable dis
pute over this matter, but It is now placed
at rest by the decision of the Supreme
Court, in the case of the clerk of the pro-
bate court of Weber county against the
county registrar and his deputies. In
1882 the clerk demanded the oaths at the
time required under the territorial law.
The registration officer refused compli-
ance. A mandamus was sued cut in the
district court, the court granted it and
the defendants took an appeal.
The Supreme Court decided that the law
of the territory requiring the oaths to be
| filed on or before the second Monday in
October is "a valid law and the iudg-
ment of the lower court was affirmed. In
ruling upon it Chief Justice Zane for the
court said.
''After the officer receives the oath and
registers the voters. it is his duty to de-
liver all such affidavits to the probate
clerk, whose duty it is to keep the same
as public record, SO that the public may
know, by inspection, whether any per-
son has been registered without taking
! the oath required by the law or the names
of any persons who have taken 1t are left
off. It is not necessary for the registra-
ton officer to keep the oaths in his pos
session.
The Commission will probably look
into this important matter, and so modify
their instructions to the deputy registrars
that the law may be fully complied with
and no further litigation or dispute arise
over matter that the courts have settled