Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-08-10
MS REVIEW OF The LAW
g,,,l Suffrage Oh Constitution and
State CllCtiS.
~ rnr OPINION OF THE COURT


.,ss. uurais, tone Nh">
oapry, Aug. IO.-Hhsn the court
..v.psd this afternoon the uistfui
81 ,,om was crowded with Rtiuf'
49,. AMI prominent citizens eagor to
IA, the decision Of Judge y. W.
srltb on The tes, case brought TO ue'
,,o,lne The rlghto u women to vote Tor
n, against tho proposed C'ns'i,ut'on
and for the election Ct State oiiierf.
,ttbs9amc time. The deo.siau was
the principal topic Of discussions Tho
.,,pl .ue,. seemed 10 be- that tue
',,t ogi,Il decide that women could
,,ls Tor the fret State uillCefr, bui not
On the Constitution.
i'm beginning his decision Judge
saith stntcd the casO tuctigclly,
.sJ that the facts alleged
an Inc AFFIDAVIT tot the writ Of man.
g,ie we're admitted. Hence the only
.Issiiop l. be determined was TIE
sial proposition, whether women were
entitled VI the coming election On vote
nrof sghinsI tue Constitution hnd ioi
gt.tr gficcrs then to be elected, anu
WIHInHN hNANN NhF ANWN '"AAaN -
nfs qualified voters entitled % utc
tho tcat0fnl privilege upon the quol-
ions IL cannot bt SAID that any pat-
Ussu auctions enter Into ihis discus
,igu OF decision, because no one has
any knowledge Of how the decision al
the question will affect the rUsult oi The
cJmiug election. IL IL % question OIL
construction only AMI the rules oi
construction OF legislative Unucimens
afr 20 10 closely followed No ns TO AZ
rive a. the iull anu Intended meaning
Of what legislation and congregational
ruaulmeu nave been made upon tuls
l1lut. Sc woman IN tho Territory, |
arpfshHu1, wishes 10 vote unltss she
has the undUI ted aud explicit right
l.s.a.u.lii action IN Tor tue pur.
1880 % determining her rights. Hence
sui the grtalysi impt rinsou 10 de-
tutmint tut question correctly In
accordance with the full meaning
IHttn1tI By Enabling ac', aud tho
acts o. that convention lhat
framed the lAw when Will be the law
~ which the people II tue Territory
vii BE- governed, IN the opinion Of the
court
The whole matter hinges principally
upon sections - and 10 oi the Enabllng
Act sui UPON the second section Of the
ltclsisgiou OF rightr. The fret
Euu second sections Of nrticle Of the
Constitution, and the llth, 18th aud
100 sections Of the schedule embraced
IN the C0nstilutiOr.
The court then quotes those sections
ard fpys that tue contention OF the
raiutl l. that II Wa the duty
VI the Constitutional Convention to
HvsIguato VINO shall DO tho electors
generally AM tina, they must permit
that class NJ prruous EAtnuI In the
ftClrI tec,iUu VI tue Enabling Act TO
vote upon the Constitution, auu further
luai the constitutional Convention
peri rmri that duty mud created the
electorate Of the proposed state, anu
that zhe falls within tho clnss OF IeT.
Haus upon whom the iiauuhise has
iguu u.u.orfed. la bIv', that she
hpl bIl others upon wnJm tue
10 proposed Constitution COufefs the
ifHuChlsU ~ well oil those portOus
u 900 wnom Il 10 conferred by the nc.
o Inugf,ts, are entitled 10 vote upon
H. adoption or rejection.
Ihu claim VI the defendant IA
lhAt Congress by the Enab.
Nug Act has created thu
electorate that Ia TO pass upon the RdOp.
Nuu or rejection Of the Cnnslitut ion,
htd that the Constitutional Convention
ma provided that that same electorate
hlsl. select the first state officers
vested Ia amy individual or set Of lutl.
Nluhl-, but the right OF voting Ii
lulely conventional And IL given OF
Withheld NJ the will Of the legislative
plNer II may DO enlarged or tes'fiul-
rl, granted or Withheld, and no one
may complain, II done IN uniform
maanef, Congress has never attempts
rl 10 sny what person or persons shall
constitute the electorate u any state
lul TIE opposite Ia affirmed by that
conditional amendment which
utclaies that the powers not
delegated 10 us by the Con.
'Ntill7n, nor prohibited by H.
pc ietvTyed to the states respectively,
oI To ne people. There IL no atlempt
10 Tue Constitution 10 limit the
power ulRny community or extend the
lianthite IN any class Of persons
mat lhuy may see III TO favor with II.
ia THIS llght II Ia doubtful II Congtess
ever Intended by the Enabling Act TO
L'1yllc an electorate Tor selecting the
N'N Ulcers Of the state, aud | do not
lHluk II would be- made within the
l."efpt Congress.
Too 'u' opinion Of the court section
.Iae Enabling Act ratified by theCon.
r.Nlu mi Convention ana made y
lhH OF he Constitution, provided
p'n'H ni voters to vote on the C0nstilu.
.l'n anu this class are the ones entitled
10 ihls vote. The voters Of the proposed
STALE "'ho people, ate those upon
"hpn the political responsibilities and
anu duties are devOlyed and under
ms new Constitution men and women
nave these responsibilities aud dutlet;
nenoe tho Constitution should be volsu
IDt OF against by these persons upon
Nhom that Instrument places the du,io.
hnu responsibilities OF electors,
l am right AZ to the test by
Whleh W. are 10 determine VINO ate
ne qualified voters Of the proposed
STATE on Utah, then II seems clear TO
ne mat the plaintiff IL entitled TO yole
nolh upon the adoption or rejection q
me Constitution, and certainly ior the
erection OF State officers OF the pro.
posel State VI Utah.
rms conclusion neoestltatCs tho 10.
tuahee OF petsmptOry writ OF man.
la'e anu The order will be that a per.
bnptOfy wit lakus rsnnirIpg ~.