Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-08-29

ISSUE TO pg DETERMINED soon


iAAa-hNs AhnNt was hlFu a NulnuDf %
ladies' present. Two AMI a bali hour,
was allowed to each side. The tille q
the case il Sarah l.. Anderson ".
Chas. -. Tyfsc, 10 which Il Is ask cd
tina, Mr Tyfec, a. registrar, regls,er
Mfs. Anderson as "A qualified voter.
MI Tyfou Is tue appellant from JUICE
smith's decision Ia favor Of women
voting. Two questions are Involved
Az follows
l.-Are women eligible to vo,e on
the Cunsgituliopg
9.--Ate women eligible 10 vote for
State Uiiicsu2
Judge HprEucss opened the Rtgu.
mrnls i0t Mr.. Iyfcc, against Tho pfop.
| Osition that WON can vote At the next
election. Hook ny the point that
q qualified ol,oiou My could vote, ~ d
insisted that {. nzfeis hul n AIDE qusli-
rcsilpus IN tue second tec.iJn Of tur
enabling act only. He believed there
was but Ono question, hut ~ the court
bUl.w had uiyidoi It iuto two, ne
would follow tnat rule, speaking fist
| 10 question No. /. Hot. X 40 tue ru.
anluk act by srudpu-, as tUey frlat, Il
to voting ana tbs qualification, nj
vo.ers, aui held thu. there wa NJ
| suggestion therein Tor the ranch IT,.
meat ui nov class Of voters, except As
uts'fibyI iu stc,lpu ., which iuu,udo4
only male voter.
lukiDg ny the application Of the
words "sal1 proposed state" Jul
HstLLtss Insisted that they referred TO
geosfApnicAl area, namely tho Ter.
fltIty, tbs iubHu tsuts which wsr @
authorized o. 'JTm state gOytfu-
nl ut. IL was peculiar 10 the
enGblirg act that n sr1n ~ the g..
habi,ant' were authorized 10 form .
state government, then tho TefrltIfy
was no longer referred to NJ such, but
~ tho propose state; AMI after Hssun-
Ing IT, admission II IL referred q ~
the Slate. In ssyiug qualified voters
VI "sald proposed state" COugfes. did
not mean 10 say "tne prop Jsed voter.
OF said state" tut to refer to tue voters
which were qualified under the on.
shling act anu existing laws. A dia.
gam oil tho -snispce ny "a grammar.
sch oil pupil could arrive at 20 other
conclusion, tuI would make II a, clear
40 Any lawyer could that Congrcf,
never intended that women ehOulI
vote on these questions,
Rsfrflns 10 Judge Smith's decl-
sipn, Mt. llstknes, said II hal plunged
tnu questiOn Into such evsfla-ting
darkness. that II took considerable time
to get II out, hence he aPologiEri Tor
occupying 40 much time In hia aua-
lyss OF the propositions presented.
Isking up the question Of tegi'tTatiJn,
Judge Hardness insisted that an oath
hAd been prescribed by Congress aui
certain notifications had been made,
but THERE was no authorization what.
ever fjr tho rtgibtAr 10 JbIitorAtc tue
registfatiOn Oatu, and allow women ~
vote. The re-. i.ifaii0n must he uudOt
the Edmuuds,ruoker oath, or under It
as modified by the enabling act. There
was no modification which could iu-
Ciude women,
Going further than this, Judge
Harknsss pointed Uut that there was
special act OF Congress fotbldding
women TO vote. That act had not been
repealed by the enabling act or any
other law. Congress qualified tho
voters for The Constitution In section
., snd nowhere else Ia tue enabling
act, There was hu utter absence OF
any provial0n which could AuthOuE
women h vote.
TRkirg up question No. 2, Judge
HaThnem insistui that the sam quail
noatlUns applied to voters Ia Uotn
cssos. The Constitution, which pro.
poses TO enfrAnohise women, does not
70 into effect until statehood IL &C.
quirsu, the election VI officers aud
other preliminary proceedings being
under laws affecting tue Territory
UpOn the proposition that the GOurtl.
tuliOual Convention had suprt mo c,u.
troll over the qualifications OF voters In
Territory Tor Hrs, State Officers, Mr..
Hardness insisted that this could not
be, as that viTluslly would mAkc the
states OF the Union tail TO tue kite OF
tho proposed State. The election for
State officers Ia not hell by direction Of
tue Constitutional Convention, not.
withttAuiinR Judge Smiih's decision,
which ssys that itI. Tue Convention
had no pJvut 20 lcgislAte Tor the guam.
hcRliOn Of voters, therefore oOulI not
authoTizH wUmon 20 vote NJ the slot-
ton pre- catiuE actual admission to
statehood, Judge Hafknsss reviewed
At length Judge Smiths decision,
oriticising It's lNdings ~ not being IN
harmony with tue congressional
enactment, Ms dealing with unneces.
sAry provisions, anu as being very
hastily given.
Judge Judd Hsked question TelRl-
| ing 10 tho l0lh section uI the euAbling
act, whs1het the constitutional con.
yention could have fixed another date
than November next Tor the election,
to which Judge HArkness replied n
the negative.
Judge Ogirn Hlles followed with 40
argument on tue other side Of the
| question, He esii Il was an issue the
decision on which should goi be
affected by public di1ru.si0ns or street
arguments. lie said Congress hAd no
power to iT the qunliilcas!O siof voters
Ia any state; but that that power Tosted
| in tue people. This was expressly trt
| out In the national Constitution, he
| cited instances whore tue quallica-
lions OF voters hal been locally nAed.
Judge Klng, Of tue court, named
MlnnesOta as One u these, and Judge
Merritt replied that Mlnues1ia's action
was not under an enabling acI, anu
hai 10 be ratified by Congress.
Several questions were aiksd by the
court, ami answered by Mt Hiles,
who proceeded with his argument,
! claiming that Ccngtts' bad ekpTsssly