Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-02-17
DEsEREr EVENING NEWS, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY II 1900

continued In force Tor the purpose VI
prosecuting violations thereof COM
mitted during the existence OF a Terri
torlal government. The act Of July
was not repealed by the Enabling Act,
for II vet applies 20 the Territories OF
Tho limited states. II ceased TO be In
force In Utah only because Il was SUI
pergeded by the Constitution upon the
| admission Of the State
We have seen that there was no leg
lslatlon OF any kind continuing In force
section S OF the Edmunds Act relating
m disqualification II Is to be observed
thar this section does not undertake by
Its terms 10 operate within the limits
~ any state. II is expressly confined
In lis operation, by It's terms, TO amy
Territory or other place over which the
United States have exclusive Jurlsdic-
ton The meaning Of the terms
opolyRamist" or person cOhabltlng,'
With reference 10 the restriction as to
yoting. has been fully settled by the
United States Supreme Court In Muir
ply VS. Ramsey lll4 L. S. 80; l.. c. p,
a.
This WAS an action for damages sus-
tained by reason OF being deprived, un-
der this section, OF the right 90 vote in
the Territory Of Utah and among other
things the court held
ut is not, therefore because the per-
son has committed the offcnse OF
blgany or polygamy at some previous
time I'm violation Of some existing
statute and as an additional punish
ment for It's commission, that he is
dIsfranchlsed by the act OF March q,
1852. nor because he is guilty OF the Of
Tense as defined and punished by the
terms Of the Act.
"1he requirements Of the eighth Sec
ton Of the act, in reference 10 a woman
claiming the right TO vote, are that she
does not, at the time she offers 20 reg
ister. oohabt with p0ygamist, bigam-
Ist or person cohabting with more
than one woman. - Upon this con-
structlon the statute is not open 10 the
affection that Il Is an ex post facto
law. II does not seek In this section and
by the penalty Of Acknowledgement to
operate as a punishment upon any Of
Tense at all.
"The dlsfranchisement operates upon
the existing state and condition Of the
person. and not upon a past 0ffense. IL
l. therefore not Retrospective. He alone
is deprived OF his vote who, when he
offers to register, Is then in the state
and condition OF a bigamlst Or poly
gainlst or Is then actually cOhabiting
with more than one woman. SO
that in respect TO those disqualified
tions OF a voter under the act OF March
22. 1852. the objection Is not well taken
that represents the inquiry into the fact
by the officers Of registration as an UNI
lawful mode Of prosecution for crime"
I'm respect to the fact OF actual CO.
habltatlon with more than one woman
the objection is equally groundless for
the inquiry into the fact, so far as the
registration officers are authorized TO
make IT. or the judges Of election. on
challenge OF the right OF the voter, II
registered. are required to determine
II. is not, in view of its character as
a crime, nor for'the purpose Of punish.
ment. but for the sole purpose OF de-
terminlng. as In case OF every other
condition attached 10 the right OF SUI
frage the qualification Of one who al
leges his right TO vote. II Is precisely
similar to an inquiry into the fact OF
nativity, Of age. or Of any other status
necessary by law as condition OF the
elective franchise
The principles which apply to eligl-
bility as a voter must apply to eligi-
bility to office, as they are In the same
section and the same language applies
to each. and in order TO be affected by
the disqualification prescribed by this
section, a person must be a polygaInist
or unlawfully cohabiting within the
meaning Of the section, lat the time"
OF entering upon the Office II is not
enough TO show that at some former
period Mr., Roberts was a polygamist
or unlawfully cohabiting, as the dis
reimbursement does not operate upon
a past offense." II would have been en-
tirely competent for Roberts TO have
taken himself from Under the operation
Of this section while Utah was stu a
Territory by simply ceasing TO be
pOlygamist or cohabiting, or by moving
into State. as the "disfranchisement"
operates upon "the existing state and
condition Of the person" only. In other
words, the offense must be continuous.
The offense and che disqualification are
coterminous.
There is a further legal proposition,
70 well settled 10 require the citation
OF authority. and that is, no statute can
operate either directly or indirectly,
extra-terrtorially. The statute in
question does not undertake TO.
The offense Of polygamy and unlaw-
ful cohabitlng is localized by the
statute. The provision is not general.
No polygamist or person thus cohabit-
ing anywhere, without any restriction
as to place" is not the language, on
the other hand. the prohibition Is con-
fined 20 a specified locality. No
polygamist or any person. thus cohab-
iting--where? In any Territory or
other place over which the United
States have exclusive jurisdiction" The
United States had no power TO make
the prohibition apply to any other
place, and did not attempt II. The Of
Tense and the place defined must CO.
exist He must be a polygamist or per-
son unlawfully cohabitlng In ANY Ter
rltory," or the statute does not apply.
The statute applies only TO residents Of
the Territory.
In the light OF these propositions let
us analyze the case as II is. II Is OBJ
jected that he is disqualified, under this
section, as a polygamist or person un-
lawfully cohablting, The disqualified
ton must exist. at the time OF his be-
coming a member But since January
1896, he has resided IN the state Of Utah,
and this statute has not since then. and
does not now operate upon him. II
can not, therefore. now disquallfy him.
The conditions OF offense and place re-
Quired by the statute TO ooexlst do not
coexist In his case. and therefore the
statute does not apply. In other words
Il Is said he is ineligible. Why? Be
cause there is a statute OF the United
States which says that no polygamist
or person unlawfully cOhabiting In
amy Territory" Is eligible, and he Is
a polygamist or person thus cohabitlng
II is a complete answer 20 say while
am a polygamist am not such In
any Territory.
While the penal provisions OF the Ed
munds Act are In full force in ANY
Territory" il would not for a moment
he contended that Mr., Roberts would be
liable TO prosecution Hereunder since
January, 1886. Why? Simply because
since that time he has committed no
crime. within "any Territory" as all
Of his acts have been In the state OF
Utah. A fortlori the disquallfying pro-
visions do not apply TO him, as they do
not even operate as a punishment up