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


The sensation OF yesterday in the
supreme court was the decision rem
dered by Chief Justice Merritt and
concurred in by Associate Justice
Bartch in the woman suffrage case
The opinion was oral and held that
women were not entitled to vote either
on the adoption of the constitution or
for state officers. Judge King dis
scented and delivered a lengthy dissent
ing opinion. Written opinions Will be
fled later on.
The Chief Justices Opinion.
Chief Justice Merritt in delivering
the opinion said: This case comes
upon the application of Mrs. Sarah A.
Anderson for a writ Of mandate to
compel Charles D. Tynee. deputy reg
istrar of Weber county, 10 place ner
name on the registration list as a ie-
gal voter on the adoption or rejection
OF the constitution and for state off1-
GERS.
The applicant is woman, and Con-
Rress passed a law, known az the Ed
munds-Tucker act, by which women
were QlSIIdHCuISeQ. j ne SCCtlO4 VI
The act bearing on this question says:
That it shall not be lawful for any
female tc rote at any election here
after held in the territory Of Utah for
any public purpose whatever, and no
such vote shall be received or counted
or given any effect in any manner
whatever; and any and every act or
the legislative assembly Of the Terri
tory of Utah providing for or allowing
the registration or voting by females
is hereby annullCd."
I do not find that this act has been
repealed, and it remains in the stat
lltes of the United States and appucd-
BILE to this territory until it is repealed
or the territory becomes a state.
Section . of the enabling act provides
that all male citizens of the United
States over the age of 81 years, who
have resided in the territory for at
least one year, may vote for delegates
to the constitutional convention, and
that those possessing the qualifications
TO vote fer delegates to the constitu-
tional convention under this act shall
be entitled to vote on the adoption or
rejection of the constitution under
such rules or regulations as said con-
Vention may prescribe, not in conflict
with this act.
Congress clearly intended this to re-
fer TO male citizens only.
Section of the enabling act says
that qualified voters of the said pro-
posed state may vote directly for or
against the proposed constitution
Who are the qualified voters Of the
said proposed state? Clearly those
male citizens over the ege of q who
have resided in the territory for one
year and who possess the necessary
qualifications.
1t is a matter of public notoriety
that this question came up in the con-
stitutional convention, AID was voted
down time and again. The constitu-
ton is very positive on this. and I can
come to no other conclusion than that
only male citizens are qualified voters
Article 4, section /, of the constitu-
ton provides that citizens shall not be
denied or abridged OF their right to
vote and hold Office on account of sex.
But that cannot take effect until the
constitution is adopted.
Section II, article "A of the constltu-
ton provides that the election on the
adoption or rejection of the constitu-
ton and for state officers shall be held
on the Tuesday next after the first
Monday in November, 1895, and shall
be conducted according to the laws Of
the territory and the provisions of the
enabling act
1t seems to me, taking the enabling
act into consideration, it is clear be-
Sond the possibility of a doubt that
only male citizens are entitled to vote
Tor the ratification or rejection Of the
constitution and for state officers. and
women only have the right to vote
When they are enfranchised by the
adoption Of the constitution by the
qualified voters under the provisions of
the enabling act. I think the court
below erred in granting the writ of
mandate. and it is the decision of this
court that the judgment of the lower
court be reversed and the writ of man
date denied.
Judge Kings Dissenting View.
Judge King, with considerable We
hemence, delivered his dissenting
opinion as follows:
Win All due Difference to the members |
or the court who have just delivered the |
majority opinion, 1 am unable TO assent |
10 any Oh the views which they have ex- |
pressed. they seem to me to be repug- |
nant TO every sense of justice and are |
certainly vlolatfve of the letter and of |
the spirit, not only of the enabling act !
but OF the constitution framed by the |
peoples representatives of the coming |
state Of Utah. The chief justice las iusj
announced that in determining whether or |
not the woman have the right to vote at I
the coming election, we are governed by |
the Bdmunds-Tucker act This view |
seems to me 60 be erroneous The rule |
of construction is, that in seeking the in
depreciation to be placed upon statutes. /
we must inquire what the conditions were |
leading to their passage. The conditions !
of Utah when that act wSS passed, were
widely different from those prevailing to-
day It is unnecessary to inquire why
that act was passed, or TO argue as to
the wisdom of the measure. It must be
admitted that it was applicable to the
territory of Utah only. 1t was never
contemplated that those provisions with
reference to the electorate should be APP
plicable when the territory put off its
Vassalage and entered upon the higher
sphere of statehood. 1t disfranchised
women, but the enabling act, if not d.
rectly by implication repealed that pro-
vision and relegated to the coming state
through its representatives the question |
of the qualification of the electorate
There is no power in the federal consti-
tuition to determine fine qualifications of
the electors m the states.
Without questioning the right of Con-
gress to legislate for the territory, it is
very clear TO me that that question is
not involved IN the discussion of this
case, because the enabling act places no
restrictions, except as found in section
and section of the enabling act, upon
The action of the people of the territory
IN selecting their delegates to franz the
constitution and in determining the |