The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-26
WHO SHALL VOTE NEXT NOVEMBER
To the Editor of The Herald:

To the Editor of The Herald:
L have carefully read and with
pleasure approve in the main, your
editorial in Thursdays Herald, on the
above subject. The question is as you
say, a legal, not political one, speak
ing in a partisan sense.
L have been and am, in accord with
The Herald, and with the position of
the Democratic party in Utah, re-
garding the suffrage question so ex-
tensively discussed recently, although
1 thought it best to leave the question
of woman suffrage to the action of the
people of the state through their rep
resentatives in future sessions of the
legislature, and not settle it in the
convention.
That body, however, having exercis
ed jurisdiction over that question and
made 1t possible for women to vote, 1
consent with perhaps a majority of
male voters that statehood shall come
in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution.
I do not, however, agree with plan
recently sprung which contemplateS
that women shall vote at the election
next November, not only as to the
ratification, or the rejection of the
constitution. but as well as for the Off
GERS of the future state.
w dS III 4SCQ SOAIiC l44llC
since on reading an opinion of certain
legal gentlemen of this city. in which
ii was opined that women could le-
gally vote at the election mentioned.
The opinions of persons, whether
eminent lawyers, politicians or lay
men. are only of real value when sup
ported, if on legal ground, either by
sound logical reasoning, or by prece-
dents. and unless SO supported the
opinion Of a layman is about as valu-
able as that of an eminent member Of
the legal fraternity.
1t is my impression that by the
terms of the enabling act, Congress in
tended that none but such persons as
were entitled to vote for delegates to
the convention, and such other per-
sons as are now entitled to vote under
United States and territorial laws,
should vote at the November election
either for or against the ratification
of the constitution or for state Off
GERS.
To me it is quite clear that the emf
nent attorneys above referred to err
in their conclusion that women may
vote at the next November election
as voters of the proposed state.'" My
conclusion is that women are not
voters of the proposed state" nor
will they become such until the pro-
posed state has ceased to be a terri
tory, which event will not occur until
the constitution has been ratified by
the legal voters and a proclamation
admitting the state to the Union by
the President has been issued.
The legal gentlemen referred to
have merely given an opinion as to
the effect of the enabling act. They
have furnished no law or precedent so
far as 1 am informed Had they been
in possession of such laws or prece-
dents. it occurs to me they would
have furnished them.
Such being the case 1 feel at liberty
to express a dissenting opinion. Law
yers as well as judges of courts are
liable to hold different opinions on
cases apparently plain. A recent case
has occurred in our highest court.
Is it necessary to carry this ques-
ton to the courts now? I think not.
Can not our anxious male and female
friends wait Until the state has be-
come assured? There will be nc doubt
as to the final result If the constitu-
ton Is adopted. Is it equally certain
that a court would instruct the COM
missioners to order the registration of
women? Or is 1t certain that the
commissioners will refuse such order,
even in the absence of an order of
court?
Is it positively known that, if wo-
men vote in November a Presidential
proclamation will issue? Or in such
case IS it not possible that the Presi-
dent might decline to issue such proc
Iamaiion?
Did the women of Wyoming vote at
the election ratifying the constitution
of that state? If they did it was be-
cause they had been voters under ter
ritoria1 laws
Did the Afro-Americans in any of
the states vote to ratify the fifteenth
amendment, which made it possible
for them to vote?
They did not, but 1t would have been
as legal and as reasonable as would
be the vote of women in the PRESENT
case HADLEY D. JOHNSON.
We publish the foregoing because it
refers to subject which has been
touched upon editorially in these col
umns. We do not care to take up the
dispute on its merits by way of ar
gument pro or con. At the same time
we disagree with our friend in the