The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-08-10

OGDEN, Aug Especial Core
spondence to The Herald 1.-The
vexed question as to whether or not
women viii he allowed to vote this
fall on the constitution and state Off
GERS will be settled tomorrow SO far as
thel registration is concerned. The
cash was submitted to Judge Smith to-
day and his decision is to be handed
down at 10 o'clock tomorrow m IN
ing. The argument was one of the
most notable of recent years in this
city. Leading members OF the ogden
and Salt Lake bar presented both
sides Of THE case. One amusing feature
of the argument was presented by the
spectacle of Judge Henderson and Ar
thur Brown, law partners, taking op-
posite sides of the case.
The test case came up for hearing
before Judge Smith this morning. The
case was on the alternative writ Of
mandate which had been issued
against Deputy Registrar Tyree of
Sfle Second Ogden precinct a. the in
stance of Mrs. sarah l.. Anderson, who
clafmed the right to register and vote
at the coming election in accordance
with the provisions of the enabling
act OF congress and the constitution OF
Ihe proposed state Of Utah.
p Mrs. Anderson was represented by
SRn able array OF attorneys from both
Ogden and Salt Lake They were
Judge Sutherland. Judge Judd, Judge
Henderson, L. s. Richards Ogden
Iiles. H. II. Henderson and J. s.
Foreman. Mr.. Tyree was represented
bS c. s. VaTian, P. l.. Williams, Ar
Asr Brown and ]. NJ. Zane. Other az
Erneys and prominent citizens were
greatly Interested Seated in the jury
box were Thomas Maloney, Judge
Bishop, David Evans. Val. Gideon,
Nathan Tanner, Charles Lee. VI. \.
Breeder. r. c. MOsby. L d. Johnson.
Seated inside the box were 4. NJ. Alli
son, II. H Rolapp, l.. r. Rogers, J. /.
I1oar a. G. Horn. c. c. Richards. A.
r. Haywood and others. \ good sized
audience filled the lobby during the
arguments, among them being Mrs.
i. ) Richards, Mrs. {. \. Nelson and
other prominent women. Commits
sioner J.etcher was in attendance and
1nade careful notes during the prog
CESS of the arguments.
Varian Opens the Case.
III necessary iCS NtlC
soon disposed Of, each side being al
lowed two and half hours to argue
the question. The case was opened by
Mr. Varian of counsel for respondent
Tyree. his purpose being to show cause
Ayhy the registrar should not be COM
PEELED to enroll Mrs. Anderson as
voter.
Mr.. Varian held that the constitu-
tional convention possessed no author
ity save such as was conferred upon
il by the enabling act of congress,
and cited authorities to show that ',ile
attempt on the part of such body
TO do anything nOl expressly author
lied was revolutionary. He cited nu-
merOus authorities TO show that none
but those already possessing the right
of suffrage could vote on PROPOSE
.ion to extend that privilege TO an
pther class.
! Regarding enabling ac.s and consti-
53ntiOnS of new states he cited Judge
sFooley to the effect that none but vot-
eV's expressly authorized by the enab-
, ling act could vote for the adoption
'or rejection of a constitution OF new
state.
Definition of 'PrOpOsed state
Mr.. Tarian insisted that the clause
IN the enabling act which authorized
rhe qualified voters of the proposed
state to vote on the constitution and
for state officers meant the residents
of that section Of country d that time
embraced within the boundary lines of
the territory of Utah. He followed up
this line Of argument by citing the
fact that the first act required OF the
convention was TO make a declaration
OF certain things on behalf of the
people of the proposed state of Utah,
which could not be construed to mean
anything but the people residing with
. II . of.
and not the people Of the state after
IL should have become state. In other
words, before the people of the pro-
posed state could proceed to form a
state government and adopt a consti-
tuition they must make, through their
representatives, a covenant with the
government of the United States. Still
following out this line of argument,
Mr.. Varian maintained that all refer
euces to the proposed state meant
t1.ah territory. and consequently the
qualifications of the voters of the pro-
nosed state meant only such qualifica-
lions as were required of voters in
Utah territory at the time of the pass
,ege of the ena bling act. He said that
.SS 7s constitutional convention, if it had
50 desired, could not have au-
+l1orized any other than the
oI,aIifed voters of the terri
tory of Utah to vote. The conven-
ton itself had refused to extend the
privilege to women to vote at the first
election. Mr. Varian referred to nu-
merous attempts to amend the sched-
ule and referred to the journal, from
which he read to verify his state
ments.
Judge SutherIand's Argument.
Judge Sutherland opened for the
women. He held that the voters of the
proposed state were such as the
constitution designated as voters, or,
10 ether words. that the voters should
re such persons as would be voters
when the proposed state was actually
III state. According TO his interpreta-
Ron OF the enabling act to be quail