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

the constitution was not to be con-
Sldered as in force Professionally, the
Judge wished to know where there was
any authority for voting for district
Judges by districts or state senators or
representatives. The right of women
TO vote was authorized by the en-
aiding act, so the judge said and the
convention had the right to confer
upogS them the right to vote at the
firstA election, and as the convention
had re-enacted the same provision of
the enabling act, they certainly had
the right to vote now,
Franklin :. Richards.
f. S. Richards followed Judge Hen
derSon. He insisted that the law in
his op:niOn, was very plain. 1t pro-
Flded that the voters of the proposed
state of Utah should vote on the adop-
ton of he constitution and for state
officers
The language in the first part of sec
ton Of the enabling act provided for
one class Of voters, but when reference
was made to the voters of the pro-
posed state it meant another class,
viz, those who would he qualified
under the constitution. and it was the
duty of the court to give effect to both
provisions when it could be done with
out causing Il conflict. To all intents
,a92>election under The state government
%Nld not the territory. Congress had
Said certain persons should vote as
sAl as all others who might be au-
Tn<Srlzed by the constitutional conVen-
ton, and it meant that, no matter
who might vote at the first election,
the class named in the first part of
section of the enabling act. men
disfranchised under the Edmunds law,
should not be deprived of the privi-
1ege.
=. L. Williams Closed.
Hon. p. L. Williams closed the argu-
ment in behalf Of the respondent,
Tyree. He cited case where a con-
Stitutional convention Vas authorized
to submit amendments 70 a state con-
stitution in accordance with the terms
of the general law, but the conVen-
ton made special provision for the
ratification or rejection of the amend
ments and the courts held that the
election was void because the conven-
ton had no power to submit the
amendments by a special provision. In
other words, the convention could exer-
cisf no authority other than that eX-
preSSly granted. He said that there
was no provision in the enabling act,
expressly or by implication. which re-
pealed the law of Congress which dis
franchised women. He cited the fact
tina certain male voters were
expressly re-enfranchised by the
enabling act but there was
nothing that by implication
could be made to mean that women
were re-enfranchiSed. Why, he asked.
if Congress wanted women to vote did
it not say SO, especially when it was
merchandising certain class of
males?
He called attention to what was
meant by the term "the people" as
used in the enabling act, and cited a
case where the question was decided
by the courts to be that where the
term the people" was used as it was
and as the qualified voters had been
expressly designated to mean the male
citizens of Utah over the age of 81
years of age. wherever the terms "the
people" or the qualified voters" We're
Aused ii meant male voters. The con-
Nention could not confer the right of
suffrage on any other class at the
first election. He insisted that the term
the proposed state was used for and
meant the same as the term the said
territory of Utah. and to give it that
s&eaning the enabling act was very
VICAR and explicit in it's provisions.
Replying to the declaration of Mr.
Richards that the election this fall
would be under the state, he wished to
know if the constitution should be re-
jected would we be under the state or
the territory In closing. Mr. Williams
declared that until the president issued
his proclamation the constitution
would be of 10 force whatever and I'M
til then only those who were qualified
10 vote as provided by the enabling act
could exercise that privilege.
This closed the case and Judge
Smith announced that he would hand
down his decision tomorrow at
O'Clock.