OCR Text |
Show every VOL. III. NO. 7. JJlvi . have Ips owif ij'if'r, mid et every - Woman SullrKge in Utah. of alien females, desirous of attaining exaltation as the willing instruments of lustful priests, were wrongfully permitted to vote under the Territorial law of 180. Under the recent Edmunds law the Mormon Church leaders awoke to the fact that their occupation was, in a Disfranchisement measure gone. stared most of them in the face, and the control of registry, and ballot box was transferred from rebel to loyal hands. Under these circumstances it seemed as if the time had come to rid this priest ridderi Territory of the iniquitous law under which the disloyal sheltered itself Mormon Church against legitimate attack. Female suffrage, illegally precipitated upon this people, in its practical outcome, is one of the strongest de- -' fences of priestly bestialism in Utah. No true friend of Republican institutions, friendly or otherwise to female suffrage, can consistently hope for its sustenation. Undoubtedly, a large majority of the loyal citizens of Utah are in favor of female suffrage when wielded by loyal and intelligent women. But the bulk of female voters in Utah are mainly ear nest in upholding polygamy, the union of Church and State, and obeying the vile behests of their priestly leaders. Our Eastern friends, whose love for female suffrage exceeds their hatred of polygamy, allow their zeal to outrun their reason, when they insist that woman suffrage must be sustained here at all hazards. Besides, the law was conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, consequently, when, for the first time in the history of Utah, the ballot box, in the hands of the Edmunds Commission was freed from base uses and slavish hands, it became of paramount importance to test the validity of the law which, like an incubus,, shadowed and handicapped every moral and material interest in the Territory. In connection with the registry of voters, therefore, test cases were instituted in each of the three Judicial Districts of the Territory, questioning, through writs of mandamus, the validity of the said law and the right of females to vote under its provisions. It was believed that the polygamous Legislature of 1370 had usurped authority in the passage of a law, which, in plain terms and palpable intent was so manifestly unjust that it would seem as if a wayfaring man though a fool; could do no other than condemn it. The argument before the court, and against the law was, first, that neither the Organic Act, under which the Territory was organized, nor the Law of Congress of 1374, in both of which are contained all there is of delegated power to the Territory to legislate upon the suffrage question, conferred the power to give women the right to vote in Utah. crowd non-Mormo- n ler own iQitsbmtd.l (for. 7 : 2. SALT LAKE CITY, ITlAH, OCTOBER, 1882. That in both acts, Congress had specifically limited the right to vote in first elections held, to "Males; that, For twelve years the opponents of to these emphatic precedents were polygamic church rule in Utah have added the accumulative evidence of been helpless at the ballot box, con- policy and tradition on the part of the trolled, guarded and stuffed as it has Nation and every State composing it, been by onr priestly masters. Not all tendingto show that up to the time only bigamists, polygamists, aliens when the latest of these grants of legand animals of the male persuasion islative power were made, there was but a no reasonable presumption of any incould vote early and often, still more numerous and superstitious tention on the part of Congress to (Communicated.) oinrni have give our Territorial Legislature the power to make voters of women. A careful reading of the acts in question, and of concurrent history, will, to a fair and candid examiner, make it as easy to extract blood from a cucumber, as to find delegated power to legislate (here in Utah) women into legal voters. Having fixed and limited in express terms the right of males only to vote at the first election in the Territory, it was left to the Legislature thereafter to fill the quali fications of the only class entitled to vote. For a number of years it would seem that the Mormon Church followed revelation rather than reason and statute law, for not till 1359, when a few incoming Gentiles became a dis turbing element of the Mormon problem, did the polygamic law makers by statute fix the qualifications of male citizens. They then conferred the of suffrage only upon a male citrignt izen of the United States over twenty one years of age who has been a constant resident of the Territory during the six months next preceding an election, and who was a tax payer. Right here it may be well to notice the haste with which two of the judges, (Hunter and Emerson) leaped to their conclusions that the female suffrage law is valid, evidently overlooking or ignoring the binding force of a clause in the same statute which requires that the six months resident in the voting sense of the term shall also be a taxpayer in this Territory This clause Judge Twiss shows conclusively has never been repealed by subsequent legislation, and is therefore, binding upon every voter, male or female. And, dissenting from the opinions of his two associate judges, he decides that females as well as males must be tax payers in this. The position of Judge Territory. Twiss is undoubtedly correct in this regard, and, had it been concurred in by his associates, would have effectualone hunly disfianchised ninety-nin- e dredths of the female voters of this Territory. The second branch of the argument against the validity of the law in question, related to the odious discrimination made in favor of the female voters as against the males. The Territorial law of 1370 confers upon every woman of the age of 21 years, who has resided in this Territory six months next preceding any general or special election, born or naturalized in the United States; or whoNis the wife, widow or daughter of a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States, the right to vote at any election in this Territory. Note the injustice and fatal want of uniformity in this statute. The male voter must be a native born or naturalized citizen, the latter being required to reside in this country at least five years, must submit to a searching ex amination under oath, in which it must appear that he is attached to the constitution and laws of the Nation, and will, support them, that he re- nounces and abjures his native allegiance, and by witness he must prove that his moral character is good, (and here in Utah) that he is not a polygamist. Both native born and naturalized male voters must be tax payers in this Territory. The woman on the contrary, under the terms of the law in question, who is the wife, widow, or daughter of a native born or naturalized citizen may vote, although she has resided in this country but six months and this without restriction or condition of morality or loyalty. Nor need she be a tax payer in this Territory, despite the manifest older law, binding upon every voter. Counsel in defense of the law admitted that Congress did not formally authorize female suffrage, but claimed that the grant of power was broad enough to infer the right of the Legislature to enact a law granting women the right to vote; that the existence of the law for twelve years upon the statute book without the interposition of Congress, and the provisions of the Edmunds bill in connection with female voters was in some sort an endorsement of the law. That the want of uniformity in connection with the qualifications of the two classes were merely adjustible qualities, and did not go to the validity of the law, nor warrant the disfranchisement of a numerous class of anxious females; and that the LegisIa-- ( ture had the right to favor said females, provided no previous substantial right belonging to males was infringed upon. In rebuttal it was urged, that Congress having in terms described the class (males) who should be allowed to the right vote only, granted to fix the qualifications of that class, and when the Legislative Assembly fixed them its power was exhausted. Counsel Intention must govern. did not intend admitted that Congress to authorize woman suffrage. If they did not intend it they did not grant it. The law is partial. If the daughter of a naturalized citizen may vote, why not the son under similar circumstances? The act was void from the beginning, and its existence on the statute book unchallenged, injects no life or validity into it. As for the Edmunds bill, its author had specifically and emphatically disclaimed any endorsement directly or indirectly, of the Utah women suffrage law. The discussion of these important questions was by Judges Hunter and Emerson who sat together on the hearing, confined and limited to four case would hours. Any three-pennhardly have less consideration, and both of their written opinions sustaining the validity of the law, were on file within forty-eigh- t hours of the closing argument. The head, breast and bowels of both opinions are composed largely of historical and legal narations and quotations, The balance of logic and conclusion go upon all fours. Both assume that nothing in the Organic Act or the Congressional law of 1374, prohibits the Territorial Assembly from y PKICE 10 CENTS. conferring the elective franchise upon females or which shows an intention on the part of Congress to confine the right to vote in Territories already organized, to male citizens. With regard to unjust discrimination and want of uniformly in the two laws, both, in language used by Judge Hunter, agree, that the two laws must be construed together; if they can be made to harmonize, it is plainly the duty of the Court to sustain them In my opinion both. these two laws taken in conjunction with the defined powers conferred by Congress can be made to stand toWhilst there may gether. be want of uniformity in the two acts, there is no deprivation of any right. And Judge Emerson utters the sentiments of both when he says, One objection is, that the act of 1370 confers the right to vote upon females, upon different terms than that applied to males, in that the latter are required to be tax payers, while the former are not. Even if this should be found to be the fact I cannot think that this would invalidate the law. Alas! how doctors will disagree. Judge Twiss, the third of our associate judges, in his written opinion upon this identical question, filed a few days subsequent to those of his brethren, says, I assume, for the purpose of this case, (but for no other) that it (the law) is consistent with all acts of Congress, and therefore, valid, and shall decide this case npon what I consider a just con- struction of the Territorial statutes. lam of the opinion that the act of 1370 (if not inconsistent with the Acts of Congress) can stand in full force not inconsistent with or repugnant to the tax paying provision of 1359, and thus females and males have the same and equal right to the elective franchise under the law. Any other construction of the statutes that would give one class of persons the right of voting upon easier and different terms than those given to another class, would make an unequality in the laws, odious to every sense ofjustice, and to every principle of Republican Government , Such statutes would be monstrous , and an offense to a Government of equal and just laws. And here Judge .Twiss stops to pitch a chunck of old red sandstone into the abdomen of his brother Emersons latest opinion, by quoting the last named Judges published opinion in Lyman vs. Martin, as folAll regulations upon that lows: subject (the elective franchise) must be reasonable, uniform andiimpartialf any provisions which should impose upon a particular class of citizens, conditions and requirements not required of all others is void. If the above was good law in the case of Lyman vs. Martin, it should be good now, and if consistently enforced, Judge Emerson would range himself beside Judge Twiss when he says that, The tax paying qualifications stand good, in full force, and applies equally to both male and female voters. I believe this is the true and just construction of the law, and as the applicant has not shown herself in any way to be a tax payer, she is not a voter under the statutes of Continued on 8th page.l . |