| Show f I l W011N 1UY NOT VOTE Thai Is the Decision of the Territorial Terri-torial Supreme Court MERMTT AND BARTCH ON XCIXC VEHDMEXTiYr DELIVERS A DISSEXTOXG TOTE The Majority Holds That the Ed i itiundsTucUer Act Remains in H the Statutes of the United State 1 nnil Applicable to This Territory lrutil It i the Territory j J Repealed or Terri Terr-i tory Becomes n State Cler Be I > OIK the Possibility of n Doubt That Only Male Citizens Arc Entitled En-titled to Tote on the Constitution f and For State OlUcers Ii The sensation of yesterday In the i supreme court was the decision rendered ren-dered by Chief Justice Merritt and i concurred in by Associate Justice i Bartch in the woman suffrage case The opinion was oral and held that women wire not entitled to vote either on the adoption of the constitution or for state officers Judge King dissented dis-sented and delivered a lengthy dissent ang opinion Written opinions will be med later on The Chief Justices Opinion Chief Justice Merritt in delivering 4 the opinion said This case comes upon the application of Mrs Sarah Anderson Anderson for a writ of mandat to compel Charles D Tynee deputy registrar reg-istrar of Weber county to place tier name on the registration list a a legal le-gal voter on the adoption or rejection of the constitution and for state officers offi-cers eelshe applicant is a woman and Congress Con-gress passed a law known as the Ed mundsTucker act by which women were disfranchised The section of the act bearing on this question says That it shall not be lawful for any female tc 1Ote at any election hereafter here-after held in the territory of Utah for any public purpose whatever and no such vote shall be received or counted or given any effect in any manner whatever and any and every act of the legislative assembly of the territory terri-tory of Utah providing for cr lowing the registration or voting by females is hereby annulled r do not find that this act has been repealed and it remains in the statutes stat-utes of the United States and applicable applica-ble to this territory until it i repealed or the territory becomes a state Section 2 of the enabling act provides that all male citizens of the United States over the age of 21 years who have resided in the territory for at least one year may vote for delegates to the constitutional convention and I that those possessing the qualifications to vote for delegates to the constitutional constitu-tional convention under this act shall be entitled to vote on the adoption or rejection of the constitution under Euch rules or regulations as said convention con-vention may prescribe not in conflict with this act Congress clearly intended this to r I fer t male citizens only v Section 4 of the enabling act says that qualified voters of the said proposed pro-posed state may vote directly for or against the proposed constitution Who are the qualified voter of the I w said proposed state Clearly those male citizens over the Cge of 21 who I have resided in the territory for one year and who possess the necessary qualifications I is a matter of public notoriety I that this question came up in the constitutional t con-stitutional convention and was voted down time and The v tme again constitu 5 tion is very positive on this and 1 can 3 come to no other conclusion than that I only male citizens are qualified voters Article 4 section 1 of the constitu tion provides that citizens shall not be denied or abridged of their right to vote and hold office on account of sex But that cannot take effect until the constitution is adopted Section 1 article 24 of the constitution constitu-tion provides that the election on the adoption or rejection of the constitution constitu-tion and for state officers shall be held on the Tuesday next after the first frst Monday in November 1S95 and shall be conducted according to the laws ot I W the territory and the provisions of the I enabling act I seems to me taking the enabling act into consideration It i clear be 5ond the possibility of a doubt that only male citizens are entitled to vote for the ratification or rejection of the constitution and for state officers consttuton ofcers and women only have the right to vote when they are enfranchised by the adoption of the constitution by the qualified voters under the provisions of the enabling act I think the court below erred in granting the writ of mandate and it Is the decision of this court that the judgment of the lower court be reversed and the writ of man date denied Judge King Dissenting View Judge King with considerable VP hemence delivered his dissenting opinion as follows With ai due deference to the members of the court who have just delivered the I majority opinion I am unable to assent asent to any of the views which they have expressed i 1 ex-pressed They seem to me to be repug nant to every sense of justice and are 4 certainly violative of the letter and of I the spirit not only of the enabling act but of the constitution framed by the peoples representatives of the coming state of Utah The chief justice Ins jus announced that in determining whether or not the woman have the right to vote at the coming election we are governed by the EdmundsTucker aot This view seems to me C be erroneous The rule of construction Is that fn seeking the interpretation in-terpretation to be placed upon statutes I I iv e must inquire what the conditions wer leading to their passage The conditions of Utah when that act ws passed were widely different from thOse prevmnf today to-day I is unnecessary to Inquire why that act was passed or to argue as to the wisdom of the measure I must be admitted that It was applicable to tie territory of Utah only I was never contemplated that those provisions with reference to 1iie electoral should be applicable ap-plicable when the territory put off Its vassalage and entered upon the higher sphere of statehood 1 disfranchised women but the enab ng act i not directly rectly by implication repealed that provision pro-vision and relegated to the coming state through its representative the question of the qualification of tile electorate There Is no power In the federal constitution consti-tution to determine the qualifications of the electors m the states Without questioning the right of Congress Con-gress to legislate for the territory I is very clear to me that that question1 not involve in the discussion of this case because the enabling aot places no restrictions except as found in section 2 and section 4 of the enabling act upon the action of the people of the territory In selecting their delegates to fraTra tie constitution and In determining the qualifications of those wh Shall vote for Its adoption and for the officers created by i Violative of the Constitution I seems to me the views expressed bj the majority of the court are violate > of the cardinal principles of constitutional constitu-tional law and strike at the sovereignty of the people In framing the constitution constitu-tion We were not acting under the EO mundsTucker act but the people proceeded pro-ceeded in the exercise of those sovereign powers which belong to them and they and they alone had tTTe right to determine deter-mine who should be voters of the cornIng corn-ing state The last sentence of section inS the enabling act provides that the persons possessing the qualifications entitling en-titling them to vote for delegates under this act shall be entitled t vote on the 1 ratification or rejection of the constitution constitu-tion undo such rules or regulations as 3 aid convention may prescribe not in con 1 r 1 Trith this act and the fiist sentence 1 of the section provides that male citizens citi-zens of the United Sat s over the age of 21 years who have resided in the ter rltory for one year prior t the election are authorized tt vote for and choose delegates to form a constitution in the territory There is no grant of power from Congress In those sentences Their purpose was or is to enable a certain class who had been disfranchised to participate in the election elec-tion for delegates to frame the constitution constitu-tion and the only qualification or lira tation placed upon the constitution makers mak-ers was that upoI same class ot male over 2 years should not be disfranchise and prevented from voting upon the adoption adop-tion of the constitution Who are to vote for the adoption of the constitution By what process of reasoning the court can construe away the provisions of section 4 of the enabling en-abling act I am unable to determine I was suggested upon the argument that the words at which election the qualified voters of said proposed state shall vote directly for or against the proposed con stitutlon and for or against any provIsion separately submitted meant that the qualified voters of the territory should participate in the election I Congress meant that the electorate of the territory should participate in the election why was not the word territory used The announcement just made by the majority of the court renders these words meaningless mean-ingless and charges Congress with perpetrating perpe-trating an absurdity if not delibpratel infringing the rights of the people to provide pro-vide the qualillcations of the voters within the state formed by them Those Who Have a Right to Vote A strict perusal of the enabling act leads irresistably to the conclusion that Congress committed to the constitutional convention the unqualified right to determine de-termine who should be the voters in the coming state subject only to the slight limitation which I have just alluded to These words are so clear they need no Interpretation The persons who are by the constitution made qualified voters In the proposed state are the ones who have the right to vote at the coming election The question then suggests itself who are the qualified voters of the proposed state Sections 1 and 2 of article 4 I of the constitution provide that the rights or citizens of the state of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridge on account of sex Both male and female citizens of this state are entitled equally lo civil political and religious rights and privileges Every citizen of the Unite States of the age of 21 years and upwards up-wards who age have been a citizen 90 days and shall have resided In the stator stat-or territory one year in the coxipty four months and in the precinct G days next preceding any election shall be entitled to vote at such election except as herein otherwise provided By these provisions females are Invested with the same pout cal rights as tho males I is a matter of current history that both of the great political parties of this territory declared in their platforms in favor of the enfranchisement of women The constitutional convention was elected elect-ed upon such platforms and these provisions provi-sions camp as the result of the deliberation > delibera-tion and the snontaneous demand of the people of this great commonwealth Males and females ar equally oitizan of the proposed state They are the ele to rate referred to in section 4 of the enab linpr act The are the qualified voters of said proposed state and they are therefore there-fore by virtue of this provision of thE enabling act entitled to vote for r 1 against the adon + 5on of the constitution I seems to me the construction which a nlacpd bv the court upon these provisions Is violativp of all canons of interpretation interpreta-tion of statutes and prepetrates not only an injustice but an outrage upon the women wo-men of Utah Men Vote For Their Own Dnfran clilscment But it is suggested that it is absurd for them to vote for their own enfranchisement enfran-chisement Is it not true that the men themselves who vote for the adoption of the constitution are voting for their own I consttuton votng enfranchisement That is they vote to disrobe themselves of the garments of territorial tutelage and to enter Into a higher and different sovereignty hey vote to give themselves the rights of citizens eat l 1 on I sn Zeus under a state Why should not women wo-men have the same right This decision i of the majority of the court violates the declaration of the constitution that the rights of citizens of the state of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex As I understand under-stand it it is admitted that If the election elec-tion for State officers were held at sometime some-time subsequent to the election for the adoption of the constitution that women could vote The reason why both elections I elec-tions are held at the same time are quite I apparent I Is for reasons of economy If the constitution enfranchises women why should not they be permitted to vote for the officers who are to serve for five years I the purpose is to enfranchise them to give them equal rights why defer de-fer that enfranchisement in effect for five years They certainly are as much interested in-terested in the selection of their offi cers when the state is first named when the responsibilities arc perhaps greater than they will be in the future in determining deter-mining who their servants shall be but the decision of the court disfranchises them and robs the proposed constitution of a beneficent feature If they can vote for officers in a year from now or five years from now why are they not permitted per-mitted to vote for officers of the state at the coming election The reason which Is assigned for denying them this right seems to be not only inconclusive but contrary to justice and commonsense common-sense But i Is stated that the proviso to section 1 of the constitution is an inhibition In-hibition upon the right of women to vote I for or against the adoption of the consti tggrr tution or for the state officers provided for therein The proviso In substance Is that all male cisens of the United States over the age of 21 years who have resided In the territory for one year prior to the election are authorized to vote The rule of construction which is clearly applicable to the case Is that a proviso Is restricted to the section of which it is a part and it is not allowable to construe a proviso so as to make it renusnant to the body of the act Article I just quoted qualifies women to vote and this proviso appended to another section admitting that it is a limitation upon the electorate would be repugnant to the provision vestIng vest-Ing the woman with canal rights and would therefore fall But it fq not 1 limitation of that which precedes and Is merely a declaration In consonance with the provision of the enabling act Majority Palpably Wrong There might be some ground for contending con-tending that the right ol women to vote for or against the adoption of the constitution con-stitution Is not clear but I can not see sttuton cear upon what theory the court reaches the conclusion that they cannot vote for the officers of the state when the constitution which creates the offices and prescribes the qualifications of the electorates invests in-vests them with every right respecting the suffrage possessed by male citizens I think the views of the majority are not only palpably wrong a legal propositions propo-sitions but they are against the spirit and the letter of the enabling act and the I state constitution 1 am or the opinion that the petitioner ought to be registered register-ed and that under her petition she ought to be permitted to vote The opinion denies de-nies her a right bestowed by the consti tution and If it is regarded a the law will deprive thousands of citizens of Utah of the same right When the majority opinion is written and presented I shall file a opinion expressing the views which I entertain upon this proposition Judge Merritt will say I do not hold the EdmundsTucker actwill be in force when Utah Is admitted to statehood state-hood hoodudge Judge Bartch If the constitution should fail of adoption or if the president presi-dent should fail to approve it the laws of the territory including the Ed mundsTucker law would remain In full force the same as before the election elec-tion i therefore follows that nothing noth-ing has happened yet to repeal or nul Ify any of the territorial laws and any other construction must be wrong The view of the chief justice Is right and leaves all laws In force until fact statehood Is an accomplished j |
