Show THE ELECTION BILL ciocci n ar ray for the expense heV sa s1 H t treasury sury c 1 ab 5 the governors GoTer nors many frivolous I 1 objections object ious asset as set out in bis his veto raes mes gage sage to Couil council cil file 33 being the election bill As as en acted by the legislative isla tive assembly aundt be noticed in the limits of this article but two of liis his prominent ones will ill be ilia first female I 1 suffrage because he doubts the validity of the previous law conferring it had the governor the same reverence for the decision of the territorial supreme court when it differs from his preconceived notion notions as he has when it agrees with mm af aji mild have been urged in the false construction st truc tion given by a majority of that court in the case of duncan vs mcallister 1 I utah report p 84 when thicourt thi the court was without jurisdiction ris cotry the construction the ath adi section of tho the organic act and iri direct conflict with the decision of the supreme court of the united states stites ija in sno snow W TS U S 18 wall because 0 the ibe majority gave argumentatively the construes tion for it did not as it could not decide as the governor prefers he ia is exceedingly urgent that the legislative legi i isla I 1 lily ti tive U aa alser ably should stand staid to its yet when that court as he well knows has pronounced the act conferring female suffrage as valid and allatt 96 in abase directly involving the question and in which it had bad unquestioned juristic juris dic tion and its decision is authoritative and not inere obiter biter dicini as it was hulus pel cascard cas cand ahei he too tod li 0 bivs thai thal congress in tho the ed E munds statute recognize it yet ho he regarda regards it hs as of doubtful I 1 validity it ia is a pity that the governor could not for once lay aside his jaundiced that ha he might ht see things as they really are t though h ugh the mormons cormons be interested this act of bis virtually cays 2 91 what do I 1 care for Court sor con v un uv ress sheds contort con form torm to toniy ay iy no tiona aa as I 1 can and will exercise cx erciso the absolute veto power 1 invested es cited only I 1 in lite governor of utah among aft all th ire 0 american states territories iid United states but still female gage u ra orbiT 6 90 does exist for whilst he may way forbid 0 the enactment of new laws he cannot repeal tha the old onea ones it however shows that he lie would sign no po election bill compatible wit nUbi interest and wishes of an majority of tile people of this territory but hit his prominent t objection is t to 0 the form of the we oath to be taken dysthe elector as presented jn A the OP or 1 COUNTY I 1 J 1 I being duly sworn depose and say that I 1 am a citizen of the united states or have declared on oath before a competent court of record my inte intention ution to become a citizen of the united states and nd hare he taken an oath to support the conati aution and government of the united states inears as tha faso may be I 1 am orai obige I 1 have r recited in the territory of utah sit six months and in the precinct of thirty days next prece dihe tho the date thereon thereof and I 1 am not disqualified as a y voter oter by any law of the united states or tha the territory of utah subscribed atad sworn to before me rue this day of IS 18 assessor aby deputy A assessor as esar in ia place thereof he required the legislative assembly to adopt the unconstitutional constitutional test oath as prescribed b by tha the utah commiss commis nooel sio nersas aa follows follo to Z owl wg UTAH 1 COUNTY oray ofay ap 4 f I 1 b being arc at d duly I 1 y nor affair affirmed vid depose and say nay that ham min over 21 years of ig age and J have in tha the territory of utah for ix monah and in the pie precinct of ouo buo month imme diate prece aug the dato date hereof au aud if a male alea am a native born allied iced aa as the case may be citizen of the e united states and a taxpayer in in his terr territory tory or if a female I 1 am namiyo born arnor or naturalized or the wife widow or daughter as the case may be of a native born or naturalized nal citizen of c f the united state states and I 1 do furthermore BO so emaly swear or affirm that I 1 am not a bigamist nor a polygamist polyna mist that I 1 have not violated the laws lawis of the united states prohibiting bigamy or polygamy that I 1 do not live or cohabit with mora more than one wo mariin matfin the marr marriage iaZe relation nor doea does any relation exist between me and any woman which has been entered into or continued in violation of the said laws of the united states prohibiting bigamy or polygamy and if a woman that I 1 am not the wife if of polygamist nor havo have I 1 entered into any relation with any man in violation of the tile laws of the united states concerning bigamy or polygamy subscribed and sworn to before me this day of A P R registration officer precinct as this test oath is of the rights of the citizen and of th the e constitution of the united stales states aa as expounded by the supreme court of the united Sta states in cummings vs tho state of missouri 4 wal in a most profound and learned opinion delivered by air hir justice justic e ali field eld and which haa has been a aptly styled the second magna abarta and bill of rights by and for the american people yet the construction bruc st tion given by the commis boxers s I 1 is ts still more objectionable and constitutional principles and of the right rights of tho the citi zens but let us see if there be any real objections to the oath aa as prescribed ra by the assembly and aten then what are the objections to tho the other it is known to every intelligent person that this test oath prescribed by the utah commission is based ton on what is known as the edmunda Edmund 14 statute found on page 80 united states statutes first session of the fortieth Vortie th congress 1881 2 approved march 22 1882 which amends section of the reviled revised statutes odthe of the united states which simply made bigamy a penal offense without any civil di disabilities but by section 8 of thia last enactment disabilities were attached as fo follows hows mithat that no polygamist bigamist or any person cohabiting ha biting with more than one woman and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described aa its aforesaid in this section in any territory korv or other place over which the ro united anted baates nave I 1 a diction dictions shall liall be entitled to fo vote al at any election held in any such territory or other place or be eligible for election or appointment to or b entitled to hold bold any office or place of f public trust honor or emalu emolument in in under or for any such territory or place or under the united stales states the only allusion to any oath in all those united states enactments beginning with the first act of jul july 1 down to and including this edmunds statute is found in the fifth section of tho the latter and relates ja t cu alone to the qualification ifju of jurors but by the oth section the commission are to conduct the election and give certificates etc under tho existing laws of tho the united states and of said territory and the only provision aa to oath for the electors ia to be found in tho the territorial statutes which simply requires thein theato to swear do as to age age residence and citizenship zeu zenshin zen ship A ho Q oath prescribed by the the commission is not only without statutory authority unconstitutional in many respects but is viola tivo of the ath section of the edmunds statute which dis franchises any person cohabiting with more than one woman but not as the corn com m missions iss iono oath has it imire more than one woman in the marriage age relation the edmunds statute says nothing about cohabiting with more than one woman in the marriage marriaga relation but ia is both general and universal aud applies to every man who cohabits with more than one woman whether married or unmarried and then it disqualifies auy any woman colla cohabiting biting with any of the above described and as the commissioners ners made eligible all voters taking this oath and directed them to be registered unless the oath taken wn was false thea have cafran chisco ft a very large class clasa of ofin i n mates malea and of houses of ill famo fame that aie ate dis franchised by the ed mundi statute but to turn to the legislative oath it u is well known that there are now many cases pending in the courts by excluded voters against t lie commissi commissioners mers brought for the purpose of testing both jhc thc oath ind and notion action of the coin mission era aud and some of the provisions of the edmunds statute eta tute in m the united stated supreme court and when that court shall pas pas on these whether by weeding out some or dec declaring lating the whole as constitutional ar or unconstitutional this legislative oath will embrace all that ia is law whether it bo be the whole or only a part whenever it ia is eo so tested by the constitution ution whatever the U S su preme court decides will be 6 the jaw law and each voter is required to swear that he lie id is cot not disqualified aa an a voter by any law of tho the united states tates or bf the territory of utah and if ho lie should take the oath when heis he ig disqualified he commits perjury jury it ia is mere bosh after the universal discussion this law has undergone to eay say that men may take it cither innocently or eva evasive sivi I 1 ly th ayr eyare re ca charged char arg geU with knori knowing 1319 e kanand it itis is their businga bu sinea to I 1 know it an and d until settled by the U S court it has to be taken as found on the statute statu te book nor is the objection that mists will get to vote or hol hold office under it tenable the law provides the right of challen challenge e to any legal leial voter and nod makes it til the b duty of the assessor and justice of the to strike off the name of any voter which may illegally get on the list the safeguards safe cafe guards against illegal voting are ample and many that arc are now allowed to vote under the Commissioners oath in violation of the edmunds law would no doubt be rejected under the legislative oath but the commissions Commis slona oath whether based on the edmunds statute or any other has been severely condemned by the court of the united states in the care cam supra of cummings Cumro ings vs missouri 00 uri and other kindred cases the state of misouri amended her constitution Alt ution after the rebellion was in which she undertook by constitutional provision to disfranchise franc bise every one who had borne part in or encouraged or ampa with the rebellion er or had departed the state to avoid being drafted into the united states military ser service Tice and disqualified them from holding any public trust or office honor emolument etc and from being officers in private corporations po rations I 1 practicing practising nac any profession or tea teaching ebing in school etc and then thea required each and all to take a test oath purging himself from all or any such disabilities althou although gh more extensive it involved identically the same principle principles as does this test oath provided by the utah commission for as was conceded by bv tho the counsel and the court unless onless it conflicted with provisions of tho the united states constitution inhibiting hibi hi bil bills Is of attainder and ex post facto louis missouri was supreme and could regulate her own internal affairs to her own liking A few quotations from this learned opinion will suffice to characterize this test oath of the commission cummings was a catholic priest and without taking the test oath thug thus prescribed by the amended constitution of blis missouri he taught in in the school and preached reached to liis his congregation for which F ich he ke was indicted and convicted by the state court and its judgment affirmed in the state supreme court and from it removed into the tile supreme court of the united states the courts first objection is it ia is retrospective it embraces all the past from this day so does the oath A enin it was required in order to reach the per bOll UV aw it was exacted not from any notion that the several acta acts designated in dilated unfitness fitness for the callings but because it was thought that the several acts deserved p punishment auis aliment and that for many of them thern there was no way to inflict punishment except by depriving tho the parties who had committed them orsome of some rights and privileges of the citizen how verily like the test oath of utah embracing even thoss those who married before there was any law in the territory against poly polygamy gamy taking iu in these jhc thc se who had married plural wives before 1862 but have ever since been monogamists those who have been condoned by the statute of limitations as well as those who I 1 have bave previously been convicted and either paid the full penalty or been pardoned pardon cd those who have been monogamists for five to twenty ye years arsand and who can be punished in in no other way again the deprivations of any right rights civil or political toli political previously enjo enjoyed ed may be e punishment disqualification from office is punishment 11 A aga ain w the theory upon which 0 our ti ir political oli institutions rest is that all men have bave inalienable rights that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness happi new and that in the pursuit of bap happiness all avocations all honors all positions are alike open to every one and that in tho the protection of these rights all are equal before the law any deprivation or suspension pension aua of any of those rights for past conduct is punishment and cau can be in no otherwise defined and so it is in utah for it reaches persons and deprives them of rights that cannot be otherwise punished again no bill of attainder or ex post pod facto law shall be passed A bill of attainder er i is is a legislative act which in inflicts flicks punishment with out a judicial trial i byan by au ex post fach facto law ia is meant one which imposes a pun punishment ishin ent for an act that was not punishable at tho the time it waa ivas committed or imposes additional punishment to that prescribed prescribe ti or changes tho rules of evidence by which less ess or diu dif lerent erent testimony is sufficient to convict thau than was then required so in utah not only arc are persons punished when there was no law against the act when perpetrated but additional punishment liaa hass been added when the f first could not be inflicted again this deprivation i 18 is punishment ish ment nor is it any less so because ft a way is opened for esca escape a from it by the oath oath the framers of the constitution of missouri knew at tho time that whole classes of individuals would be unable to take the oath to them there is no escape provided to them the deprivation waa was intended to be and ia is absolute and perpetual how flow applicable to a large class of citizens of MAW again A alp let us 3 not pot forget thata that abeto he constitution us t it U di declares aares that trial trials by jury in all catis in which it h has beep bev formerly used should remain inviolate forever yet this severe punishment by depriving many citizens of the right to vote or hold office and of participating as other citizens in public affairs has been inflicted without legal process or trial of any kind or judicial sentenced sentence and as the court said in that case reverses the rule upheld by the wisdom and aud experience of centuries that every man ia is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and presumes every man to be guilty until he be purges himself by an odious galory oath the tile commissioners have violated both the ted fed states in |