Show THE DECISION ON I 1 tale TI e utah colainni ision sustained tallied by tile U S Sti preme court I 1 I 1 it is not ile held id responsible for the acts of I 1 I 1 I 1 officers I 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 I 1 i I 1 WAS washington 1 march 21 A 41 decision was rendered d by the Sup kili court of the united keates today to day in a seriel of five fire cases cafes brought by ci aits tj yeu of utah tor for the purpose of of petting getting a judicial decision as a to tile po power w of f t the he board of commissioners appointed appo po cited andr the edmunds act of march 1882 t to Q sill supervise demao elect elections ong in that Territory chii complainants and appellants in aliese cases cates are jesso jesse J murphy mary ann pratt Nl mildred ildred E and alfred randall randa ellen 0 and rind hiram B clawson and james M barlow the defendants and appelless appellees app alip ellees are alex ramsey and othera others I 1 j the tile federal board of commissioners and certain registration of officer ficeto appointed bv by them the principal question raised by the suit is if whether Whither tho coard board of coin Coln irli appointed under the edmunda edmund 9 act had to prescribe asa condition of registration of vot ers a discrimination q test oath ro re quiri tip the applicant for registration to swear that he or she is nov living in a geato of bigamy or poly gamy tilli court izolda thac the rules rulea promulgated by ulf the board prescribing tiie the form forai of oath to be bp exacted offering to register as voters add arid which con von statute the directions under tinder which it is alleged ilio the officer acted in cases hero here complained of we were rd without force no effect i can an be riven given them it cannot be alleged aliened ali all ened eved the court holds that they hal had tho effect jn in law of preventing epting the I 1 of plaint plaintiffs iffa jort for the h e registration 11 officers were not bound nor authorized ten uk obey them and if they did so they did dil it in their own wrone no relation between lie file board and the officers appointed by them of principal and agent so as to make the members of tha former fortner liable for what the latter lattur may have illegally done under their instructions and therefore no COB bub lection in law between tl the ie acts of the board as charged anil tile tiie wrongs complained of if it bo 60 supposed that the tile board had power which it scenia they clAit tied and ex excised putting into form hie the rules fortso fort lo of the tion of acers their interpretation ol 01 the lawand Ij in ill hat that way ay published e erroneous reci neou s and illegal restrictions up in ton tile right of in in the terri tory such acts wore were not ministerial and aria cannot ba a round olfaction of action nid lo 10 of that oa lasa las a which involve the exer viso ol 01 judgment and discretion in public an ursand and which aich even when erroneous ns cannot furnish a cause of aci rei ion tor for damages in either view therefore judgment jn dment in favor of the board ol 01 commissioners in the court belo below was rig lilly rendered As regards t the I 1 to power and cespon abili sivility I 1 lity ty of the registration officers tho the court holds they acio merely ministerial officers afi acra and if they dt die priced tho tile complainants of their ight to be a as 41 voters in violation of law they aro responsible in an action for dai damages nages in conclusion condu aion justive matthews who delivers the opinion of the court says with reference to tile tinn aliby of the tile abare mentioned act counsel for appellants in the tile ar cements seemed to constitutional power of congress to pass the act of march 1882 so faras it abridge i the rights of electors in ill the territory under previous laws lawo but that question ia is we ve think no longer open to discussion it lias has passed bea beyond id the versy i into uto nned nat judgment the tile scope ofilio united St slates atell as sovereign owners of the N national territories hare have supreme power ocer ozer them and ani their inhabitants the exercise of this sovereign 1 ign dominion they are represented by the government of or lie tile united states to whom all powers of government over that subject only to tc such restrictions as are expressed in ill the constitution or necessarily im plied in its terms or in the tile I 1 purposes aspa and objects of the power me itself if in ordel ordaining rung a government ait for tin the terri and add people who w ho inhabit them all the discretion which belongs ts t the leg legislative dative powers vested in incon con grese and that extends beyond any controversy to determining by law from time tinie to to time form of local government in a particular territory Teni tory and the qualifications of those who shall administer it it rests with congress to bay say whether in a glat eiveri case any of the tile p people eople resident resi denti in the territory shall participate in tho the election of its officers ceis or making its laws and it in may ila lake take frojm them any r right 61 1111 of suir suffrage rage ii it may previously have conferred or at any time modify or abridge it as lis it full may deem expedient the personal loucil 0 vevil rights of the inhabitants ot oi territories tire secured to them as to all other othe r citizens by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all I 1 abi of government Rovern ment state and natio national nal |