OCR Text |
Show IT WAS SOT TIAXDOLPII TUCKER. If there is anything more debasing than the spectacle of a politician deliberately de-liberately lying to win bis point, we i n"t kmw of it. If we are to wage a jHiiitical light in this Territory on parly lines, by all means let us be fair ami nut attempt to take the advantage o. the uniformed. Our reasons for t: king this vi,y i.i on account of the p: gra n being carried out by the Ee-jf.lilicans Ee-jf.lilicans to m;.kc the people of this Territory believe, that it was Rax-)oli'u Rax-)oli'u Tuckfk, or the Democratic party, that robbed the women of Utah of the franchise. This was the attitude atti-tude of Jonx "M. Zane in Spanish Pork on Tuesday night, and it was the assertion made by Judge Saxey in this city a few days ago, in answer to a question by Win. D. Roberts, "Who look the lrancl.ise from the women of Uiuh?' Let in look at the history of this thing: On the Sth day of December, 1SS5, Senator Edmunds introduced a bill (S. 10, to amend the measure he had succeeded in having passed three years previous, known as the Edmunds law. This bill, which we know as the Edmunds-Tucker law, was rtad twice and sent to the judiciary committee. On December 31st the chairman of this committee, Senator Edmunds, reported back the bill, "favorably and without amendment." The bill was then placed on the calendar, and on the oth of January, 1SSG, it came up lor debate. The very first thing that w as done was a motion by one of the Senators to amend the bill by striking out section 7, which reads as follows: Sec. 7. That it shall not be lawful for any female to vote at any election lu reaiter held in the Territory of Utah lor any public purpose whatever, and no such vote shall be received or counted or given effect in any manner whatever; and any and every act of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory Terri-tory of Utah providing for and allowing allow-ing the registration or voting of females fe-males is hereby annulled. The motion was strongly opposed by Senator Edmunds, and among other arguments he used in favor of taking away from the women of Utah Ii-lie ii auem.e, were tnese: It is to relieve the Mormon women if Utah from the slavehood of being obliged to exercise a political function which is to keep her in a state of degradation: deg-radation: it is to diminish the voting power of this hierarchy. We do not propose to annul the voting that the women of Utah have done hitherto. We only propose to say that for the time being they shall not vote any more. It does not disturb any vested right, unless it is a vested right in a Teniti i to vote according to the Territorial Ter-ritorial law when Congress has not . yet approved that law, but now pro poses t disapprove it. On January Cth the Senate renewed t he debate on the bill, and on a vote being called for on the motion to strike out section 7. proposing to rob the v, men of Utah of the franchise, there v. re 11 in favr of the motion and 38 V.ainst. On January 8th the bill passed the senate, and foui days later was sent to the House i;iu referred to the committee com-mittee on judiciary. It was here that liANDOi.ru Tuckeii saw the bill for the first time, that is, so far as we have any record of. On June Sth, Congressman Oates, in behalf of PiANDOLra Tucker, chairman of the committee on judi-1 ciary, reported upon the bill, but recommending re-commending the passage of a substitute, substi-tute, which w:ts ordered to be printed and placed on the calendar. This substitute, sub-stitute, however, was not changed so far as the section providing for the disfranchisement of the women of Utah was concerned. That part of the bill remained intact, just as Senator Sena-tor Edmunds had prepared it in the lirst place, and before Randolph Tucker ever saw the bill. This fact cannot be controverted, no matter how much our Republican friends I would try. On January 12, 1887, the House went into a discussion of the bill. No soon er had the bill been read and discussion discus-sion invoked, than Representative I L'iX(; arose and moved to strike out the disfranchising clause. Supporting Lixi came Ezra U. Taylor, who .aid he was "pained to find such a provision pro-vision in the bill," asserting that '-for a long time female suffrage has prevailed pre-vailed in Utah, with no known evils connected with it. This bill," said he, "strikes that down without any complaint com-plaint as to the manner in which it has been exercised, and without any allegation of danger in its future exercise. exer-cise. I am appalled at the first suggestion sug-gestion of taking the election franchise fran-chise from a considerable class of persons per-sons accustomed to its use. Will the precedent be invoked hereafter? and, if so, in what direction? Who can tell?" Ri.'Dex P. Bennett, of North Carolina, Car-olina, protested against the passage of the bill in a most patriotic manner, and when he reached the disfranchisement disfranchise-ment cruise, he said: 'Tf this were a new proposition I -..should support it. I believe in the in- herent, God-given right of American citizens in their Slates, in their Territories, Terri-tories, in their municipalities, to establish, es-tablish, order, and control their own domestic institutions, and believing in that with all the earnestness of religious reli-gious conviction, believing that and feeling that, I would not raise my voice against the action of the people of this Territory in giving suffrage to its female residents. We have adopted the suffrage of the plow in this country as the fixed policy of our government, and the sooner gentlemen recognize that the suffrage of the plow is God's gospel applied to the ballot the better it will be for them." This Democratic talk won the applause ap-plause of the whole House. The discussion on the bill was closed by Randolph Tucker, chairman chair-man of the judiciary committee, but not one word did he utter in reference to the section disfranchising the women of Utah. He supported the bill, it is true, but so far as this clause is concerned con-cerned he remained silent. The bill, as amended by the substitute, sub-stitute, passed its third reading in the House on January 11, 18S7, andj the next day was received in the Senate. Here Senator Edmunds fought the amendments that had been made in the House, and ou his motion the Senate Sen-ate disagreed to the bill and a Conference Confer-ence committee was appointed, consisting con-sisting of Senators Edmunds, In-galls In-galls and Puoh. This committee met a similar cemmittee from the House, consisting of Representatives Tucker, Collins and Taylor. Before Be-fore the bill was discussed, however. Randolph Tucker withdrew from the committee, and Congressman Hammond was appointed in his place. This accounts for the absence of the name of Randolph Tucker at the end of the report. It must be remembered that the section providing for the disfranchisement disfranchise-ment of the women of Utah remained unchanged from the time Senator Edmunds Ed-munds wrote it before the biil was first introduced in tne Senate, to the time the measure became a law. Herce the assertions made by John M. Zane and Judge Saxey; are false and the people should not be gulled. What we have here given are matters mat-ters of history. They can be found in the printed records of Congress, and in the face of these facts it is to be hoped our Republican friends will not further seek to foist the unpardonable act of robbing the women of Utah of the franchise upon the Democratic party. If the Republican party had been the friends of the Mormon people as Zane and Saxey and even John Henry Smith would have the people believe, why is it that more of them did not vote against the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker bill than they did? They had it in their power to kill the bill before it ever left the House. Then why did they not use that power? The Senate at the time was Republican, there being 42 Republicans Republi-cans against 33 Democrats? So that the Republican Senators could have I prevented the bill from ever reaching the eyes of the House had they so chosen. But what are the facts? The vote shows that notwithstanding the majority the Republicans had in the Senate, but one of that number was man enough to come out and say that so far as his vote was concerned he would cast it in the defense of the suffrages of the people peo-ple of Utah. This one man was Senator Sena-tor Hoar. In the House but one Republican Re-publican voted against the bill. It was James E. OIIara. That our readers may know the names of the men who did vote against the passage of the Edmunds-Tuckeu law, we herewith append them, with also the political affiliation of each one: house. John S. Barbour, Democrat. Risden T. Bennett, " Edward S. Bragg, Geo. C. Cabell, T.J.Campbell, Ezra C. Carleton, " Marlin L. Clardy, Patrick A. Collins, Barnes Compton, " D. B. Culbertson, John W. Daniel, ' Geo. W. Dargan, Samuel Dibble, " John R. Eden, Martin A. Toran, Nenj. F. Frederick. John B. Hale, Benton J. Hall. " Wm. D. Hill, " Alfred B. Irion, " J. II. Jones, " John K. Kleiner, " Benj. Lie Fevre, " John M. Martin, u Roger Q. Mills, Chas. L. Mitchell, Wm. II. Neece, " J as. E. O'llara, Republican. J. J. O'Neill Democrat. Jos. II. Outhwaite, " W. II. Perry, " John II. Reagan, " Thos. G. Skinner, " W. J. Stone, Timothy E. Tarsney, " Geo. D. Tillman, Henry G. Turner, " T. B. Ward, A. J. Warner, ' W. L. Wilson, Total 40. SENATE. Jos. C. S. Blackburn, Democrat Jos. E. Brown, " M. C. Butler, Wilkinson Call, Richard Coke, " Randall L. Gibson, 44 Wade Hampton, 41 Isham G. Harris, 41 Geo. F. Hoar, Republican. John E. Kenna, Democrat. Matt. W. Ransom, 44 Zebu Ion B. Vance, 44 W. C. Whittborne, Total 13. |