The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-01

1 OF q years, who have resided in the ter
! r1tory for one year prior TO the election
are authorized To vote for and choose
] delegates to form constitution in the
| territory. There is no grant OF power
| from Congress in those sentences. Their
purpose csg+ - was or Is to 6aa enable haae
oisfranchised to participate in the cleo
J ton for delegates TO frame the constltu-
| ton, and the only qualification or hInl-
/ tation placed upon the constitution max
ers was that this same class of males
over Il years should not be disfranchlsed
and prevented from voting upon the adop-
Who are to vote for the adoption of
! the constitution? By what process Oh
! reasoning the court can construe away
| the provisions of section OF the en-
aiding act am unable to determine Ii
| was suggested upon the argument that
| the words "at which election the quallhed
voters of said proposed state shall vote
directly for or against the proposed CON
Stitution and for or against any provision
! separately submitted meant that me
! qualified voters of the territory should
! participate in the election. II Congress
meant that the electorate OF the territory
! should participate in the election, why
! was not the word territory" used The
announcement just made by the majority
| of the court renders these words mean
! ingless and charges Congress with perpe-
! trating an absurdity. If not deliberately
/ infringing the rights of the people to pro-
! vide the qualifications of the voters
within the state formed by them.
! Those Who Have u Right to Vote.
A strict perusal of the enabling act
leads irresistably to the conclusion that
Congress committed to the constitutional
convention the unqualified right to de-
termine who should be the voters in the
coming state, subject only to the slight
| limitation which l have just alluded to.
These words are so clear they need no
Interpretation. The persons who are by
! the constitution made qualified voters in
the proposed state are the ones who have
the right to vote at the coming election.
The question then suggests itself, who
are the qualified voters of the proposed
state? Sections 1 and of article t. of the
constitution, provide that, the rights of
citizens of the state of Utah TO vote and
hold Office shall not be denied or abridged
on account of sex. Both male and female
citizens of this state are entitled equally
TO civil, political and religious rights and
privileges Every citizen of the United
wards who shall have been a citizen 90
days and shall have resided in the state
or territory one year, in the county four
months, and in the precinct t, 90 days next next
to vote at such election, except as herein
otherwise provided By these provisions
females are invested with the same pollt1-
cal rights as the males.
It is a matter of current history that
both of the great political parties of this
territory declared in their platforms in
favor of the enfranchisement of women.
The constitutional convention was elect
ed upon such platforms and these -provi-
sions came as the result of the delibera-
stion and the spontaneous demand of the
people Of this great commonwealth.
Males and females are equally citizens of
the proposed state. They are the electo-
rate referred to in section of the enab-
ling act. Thew are the qualified voters of
said proposed state and they are there
fore by virtue of this provision of the
enabling act entitled to vote for or
against the adoption of the constitution.
It seems to me the construction which 20
placed by the court upon these provisions
is violative of all canons of interpreta-
ton of statutes and prepetrates not only
an injustice but an outrage upon the wo-
men of Utah.
Men Vote For Their Own Enfran-
chfsement.
But it is suggested that it is absurd
for them to vote for their own enfran-
chisement. Is it not true that The men
themselves who vote for the adoption of
the constitution are voting for their own
enfranchisement? That is, they vote to
disrobe themselves Of the garments of
territorial tutelage and to enter into a
higher and different sovereignty. They
vote to give themselves the rights of citi-
ZenS under a state Why should not Wo
men have the same right? This decision
OF the majority of the court violates the
declaration of the constitution that the
rights of citizens of the state of Utah to
vote and hold office shall not be denied or
abridged on account of sex. As / UNDER
stand it it is admitted that if the cleo
ton for State officers were held at some
time subsequent TO the election for the
adoption of the constitution, that women
could vote. The reason why both cleo
tons are held at the same time are quite
apparent. 1t is for reasons of economy.
If the constitution erfranchises women
why should not they be permitted to vote
for the officers VINO are to serve for five
years? If the purpose is to enfranchise
them, to give them equal rights, why de-
fer that enfranchisement in effect for five
years? They certainly are as much in
terested in the selection of their Off
the responsibilities are perhaps greater
than they will be in the future. in deter
mining who their servants shall be. but
the decision Of the court DISTINGUISHES
of a benefcent feature. IL they can vote
for officers in a year from now, or five
years from now. why are they not per
mitted to vote for officers of the state
at the coming election. The reason
which is assigned for denying them this
right seems to be not only inconclusive,
but contrary to justice and common
sense. But it is stated that the proviso
to section II of the constitution IS an in
hibition upon the right of women to vote
for or against the Adoption of the consti-
tuition or for the state officers provided
for therein. The proviso in substance is, !
that all male citizens of the United
resided in the territory for year prior
to the election are authorized TO vote.
The rule Of construction which is clearly
applicable to the case is THAI a proviSo
IS restricted to the section of which it is
a part and it is not allowable to construe
a proViSo so as to make it reDugnant to |
the body of the act. Article Just quoted
qualities women 10 vote, and this proviso !
appended to another section, admitting |
that it is a limitation upon the electorate, |
would be repugnant to the provision vest !
ing the woman with ennal rights. and |
would. therefore. fail. But it is not q |
limitation of that which precedes, and |
IS merely declaration in coDsonance |
with the provision of the enabling act
Majority PaIpabIy Wrong.
There might be some ground for con- |
tending that the right of women to vote |
for or against the adoption of the con- |
Stitution is not clear, but | can not see |
upon what theory the court reaches the !
conclusion that they cannot vote for the |
which creates the Offices and prescribes !
the qualifications of the elecuorates IN |
vests them with every right respecting |
the suffrage possessed by male citizens. |
/ think the views of the majority are !
not only palpably wrong as legal propo- |
Sitions, but they are against the spirit |
and the letter of the enabling act and the !
state constitution. ] am of the opinion |
that the petitioner ought to be register |
ed and that under her petition she ought !
to be permitted to vote. The opinion de-
MES her a right bestowed by the consti-
tuition and If i is regarded as the law |
will deprive thousands of citizens of Utah !
opinion is written and presented [ shall |
file an opinion expressing the views which !
/ entertain upon this proposition.
Judge Merritt will say I do not |
hold the Edmunds-Tucker act will be in |
force when Utah is admitted to state
hood.