The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-08-30

NNollo ~ NOAS db lliS INAN -NONNA
election on the adoption or rejection of
the constitution, and also for state
officers, was argued before the terri
torial supreme court, with Chief JUS
tice Merritt, Judge Bartch and Judge
King on the bench
The matter came up on appeal from
the decision of Judge Smith in the
Fourth district court at Ogden in the
case Of Sarah E. Anderson, plaintiff
and respondent, against Charles D.
4 Tyree, deputy registrar, defendant and
- ppeIlant. Judge Smith held that I'M
Saaer the terms of the enabling act wo-
men might vote for both the adoption
or rejection of the constitution and
for state officers.
There was a formidable array Of
counsel on both sides. For the appel
liant, Tyree, appeared Judge Hardness,
c. S. Varian, Arthur Brown and A. 7.
Schroeder. For the respondent, Mrs.
Anderson, there were Ogden Hiles,
Sutherland & Murphy, j. l.. Rawlins,
George Sutherland Waldemar Van
Colt, II. P. Henderson, F. S. Richards
and c. C. Dey.
1t was arranged between counsel
that there should be three speakers
on each side, and the court limited
each side to two hours and a half. The
speakers for the appellant were Judge
Hardness, 9. S. Varian and Arthur
Brown, and for the respondent. Ogden
11iles. +. S. Richards and II. P. Hen
derson.
"A number of ladies were present dur
ang the arguments. among whom were
Mrs. Amelia Folsom Young, Miss Fol-
som, of Chicago, Mrs. Kate Smith,
Mrs. Emily Weller and others.
Judge Hardness.
The arguments for the appellant,
Tyree, against women voting were Of
Tered by Judge Hardness.
He took up the point that qualified
electors only could voIe. and insisted
that Congress had made qualifications
in the second section of the enabling
act only. He believed there was but
one question, but as the court below
had divided it into two, he would fol-
Cow that rule, speaking first to question
No. l. He took up the enabling act
10y sections. as they related to voting
and the qualifications Of voters. and
held that there was no suggestion
$herein for the enfranchisement of a
new class of voters, except as de-
scribed in section 2 which included
only male voters.
The privilege of voting is not a ma
u tural or inherent one. 1t is therefore a
'Nsrant and not the withdrawal of any
inherent right.
Sec 4 of the enabling act is the por-
ton OF that act from which the differ
ences of opinion have arisen This sec
ton provides for submitting said
constitution to the people of said state
sSor ratification or rejection at an
Section to be held in November. 1895,
Wat which election the section saws
the qualified electors of said pro-
posed state shall vote directly for or
against the proposed constitution.
The contention, said the judge.
centers on the meaning 10 be attached
to the words qualified voters of said
proposed state"
Taking up the application of the
words said proposed state,' Judge
Hardness insisted that they referred
10 a geographical area, namely the
territory. the inhabitants of which
were authorized to form a state gov
eminent. II was peculiar to the en-
aiding act that as soon as the in
1Aabitants were authorized to form A
State government, then the territory
was no longer referred to as such, but
as the proposed state; and after as
sunling its admission 1t is referred to
as the state. In saying qualified voters
of said proposed state" Congress did
not mean to say The proposed voters
OF said state but to refer to the
voters which were qualified under the
enabling act and existing laws. A dia-
gram Of the sentence by a grammar r
school pupil could arrive at no other
conclusion. but would make it as ciea
as any lawyer could that Congress
never intended that women should
vote on these questions.
ID.afr,-
sion. Mr.. Hardness said it had plunged
the question into such everlasting
darkness that ii took considera HE
time to get it out, hence he apologized
for occupying SO much time in his
analysis of the propositions presented.
Counsel held that the qualified cleo
prs were those qualified under the
( 1ldmunds-Tucl0er law. who were al
&sSeady qualified and not those who
Titory became a state. The language
of the Utah enabling act was sub
stantially the same as that of the
Dakotas in this respect
In the case of Wyoming and Idaho
women had been qualified voters for
years before the admission to state
hood. Congress had not been inatten-
tive as to who were qualified voters
IN Utah. 1t had prescribed the Ed
Inunds-Tucker law, the registration
law and other qualifications and it
was specially provided that male citi-
zens alone should be the voters
The special act providing that
women should not vote was not re-
pealed, neither We're any of the acts
prescribing the qualifica tons of voters.
and acts of Congress cannot be an
1ulled in any such manner as that
proposed by those who hold that
women may vote. The Judge fhoupbt
dt was very clear that it was NOT tho
intention that womlnen should vote
on the adoption of the constitution
Coming to the question of women
voting for state officers. counsel held
thai the constitutional convention had
10 authority and no power to pres
csibe qualifications of voters in this
regard. He also said that the opinion
of Judge Smith dealt in speculative
theories and enveloped in darkness
Ind mystery a subject that in itself
was clear and plain.
Judge Judd asked a question relat-
snR~to the 18th section Of the enabling
aeI whether the constitutional con-
ventios could have fixed another date
than November next for the election.
10 which Judge Hardness replied in
the negative.
Judge Ogden Hiles.
Judge Hiies opend for the respond
ent He said the general question is,
whether under the existing statutes
and institutions of the proposed state