Show SHALL WOMEN BE VOTERS f Judge Smith Will Hand Down His Decision This Morning ABLY ARGUED IN OGDEN Leading Lawyers Take the Opposite Op-posite Sides of the Case < TttlicrIaml Roreman Hilc Hen 1 ferson anil Riehards For the is oiucii ami Variaii Williams and Brown Against Them Intense In-tense Interest in Osdcii Jeorjje W Snow Addresses thc Democrats Demo-crats of the Second U ard Lov iiifc Republicans Still IvnoeUiuu Each Other Out Pertinent Press Opinions OGDEN Ug SSpeoai Correspondence Corre-spondence to The Herald The vcxed question as to whether or not women will he allowed to vote this I fall on the constitution and state officers cers will be settled tomorrow so far as I thC gistration is concerned The I cast was submitted ito Judge Smith to da > and his decision is to be handed down at 10 oclock tomorrow m in ing The argument was one of the most notable of receipt years in this I city Leading members of the Ogden j I and Salt Lake bar presented both I sides of hue case One amusing feature I of thf argument was presented by the I bpiXtaele of Judge Henderson and Arthur I Ar-thur Brown law partners taking opposite I op-posite sides of the ease The test case came up for hearing I before Judge Smith this morning The case was on the alternative writ of I mandate which had been issued against Dtputy Registrar Tyree of I jtlie Fecund Ogden precinct iZ the in St mce of Mrs sarah E Anderson who I ilatowcl the right to register and vote regster I a hitmd coming election in accordance with the provisions of the enabling I act of congress and the constitution oiL I I oi-L tli proposed sfte of Utah j i l Mrs Anderson was represented by j n able array of attorneys from both Ogden and Sail J ke They were I Judge Sutherland Judge Judd Judge Henderson IT S Richards Ogden I Jules H H Henderson and J S j foreman Ir Tyree was represented I lc O S Varian P L Williams Ar 4r Brown and J M Zane Other at j rneys and prominent citizens were I reatljr interested Seated in the jury I box were Thomas Maloney Judge j i Bishop Dnvid Evans Val Gideon I 3s a than Tanner Charles Lee M A rceden R C Mosby T D Johnson 31 I Whtpple and A J Weber Seated inside the box were E M Allison Alli-son I I Rolapp L R Rogers J L 3 > > ir A G Horn C C Richards A K Heywood and others A good sized audience filled the lobby during the arguments among them being Mrs P S Richards Mrs C A Nelson and other prominent women Commis foner Letoher was in attendance and lade careful notes during the prog h < of the arguments Varian Opens the Case Th necessary preliminaries were s wiI disposed of each side being ul lwea two and a half hours to argue lu question The case was opened by Mr Varian of counsel for respondent TA ret his purpose being < to show cause iwhy the registrar should not be compelled com-pelled to enroll Mrs Anderson as a voter Mr Varian held that the constitu convention author tional possessed no ity save such as was conferred upon i by the enabling act of congress and cited authorities to show that Uie atemrt on the part of such a body to do anything not expressly authorized author-ized was revolutionary He cited numerous nu-merous authorities to show that none but those already possessing the right of suffrage could vote on a proposition proposi-tion to extend that privilege ito anther an-ther class J Regarding enabling acts and con t itinus of now states he cited Judge Jl liy to the effect that none but vot va expresftly authorized by the enab W 1 ng act could vote for the adoption I rejection of 3 constiution of a new state i I Definition oC Proposed State Mr Varian insisted tthat the clause I in the enabling uct which authorized j ibe qualified voters of the proposed state to vote on the constitution and I for state officers meant the residents of that section of country at that time embraced within the boundary lines of I the territory of Utah He followed up I this line of argument by citing the fact that > the first act required of the J convention was to make a declaration of certain things on behalf of the people of the proposed state of Utah which could not be construed to mean j anyitJiing but the people residing within i i I with-in the territorial limits alt that Ume j j and ho the people of the state after i i 5t should have become a state In other j i i words before the people of the proposed j I posed state could proceed to form a i tate government and adopt a consti i tuition they must make through their representatives a covenant with the I I I government of the United States Still I following out this line of argument folow > lne arumen I 3Ir Varian maintained that all refer i > nces < to the proposed state meant CTlah territory and consequently the I qualifications of the voters of the proposed pro-posed state meant only such qualifications qualifica-tions as were required of voters in I ITtab iterritory at tIle time of the pass Jtge of the enabling acL He said that I < he constitutional convention if it had so desired could not have authorized deire < thorized any other than the I qualified voters of the territory terri-tory of Utah to vote The convention I conven-tion itself had refused to extend the privilege to women to vote at the first election Mr Varian referred to numerous to amend the sched merous attempts 1o he sCed ule and referred to the journal from whidh he read to verify his statements state-ments Judge Sutherlands Argument Judge Sutherland opened for the women He held that the voters of the proposed state were such a the constitution designated as voters or In ether words that the voters should Ji c Jk such persons as would be voters when the proposed stat > j was actually O state According to his interpreita of the enabling act to be a qual i 0 4 o ified voter of the territory or qualified to vote for delegates to the constitutional constitu-tional convention did not fill the bill Speaking of the schedule he said that the language used in regard to the I qualiiication of voters was precisely the same as the language used in the enabling act to assume that the con intended that voters of the proposed state should vote at the first election then the schedule meant the same thing Judge Sutherland maintained that for the purposes of the first election the convention had the right under the enabling act to asume that the constitution con-stitution was adopted and in proof of this declaration he cited the fact that Congress said the convention might provide for the election of state officers cers at the same time that the consti tution was submitted to the people This was not mandatory The convention conven-tion could do as it pleased But if it I did provide for the formation of a state government in accordance with I goyernment the provision of the constitution such state government was expressly held in abeyance until such time as the state shall be declared a state by proclamation pro-clamation of the president He cited numerous provisions in the I constitution which were absolutely I necessary to be followed in order to hold an election as for instance in the judicial elections the boundary of the districts and in the senatorial and I I representative elections the boundary I of districts apportionment of legislative districts etc which take effect only with the constitution I the constitution constitu-tion was not for the time being considered con-sidered in force as to these officers how could an election be held I it could be considered in force as to these things why not as t the qualification II of voters Speaking of tne right of the I convention to do certain things he insisted in-sisted that it had the power to legislate legis-late on certain matters but that all done the convention legislation by conventon must conform to the constitution The power to legislate was conferred by the enabling act when it authorized the convention to provide by ordinance for certain things to be done in order that the constitution might be carried into effect Here a recess was taken until 2 oclock Judge Boreman followed Judge Sutherland i Suth-erland at the afternoon session Ha i claimed that the authority was contained con-tained in the enabling act for women to vote He contended that Congress had said to the people of Utah that i they could elect delegates to the consti j I tutional convention and that for the I purpose of the election for delegates to the convention certain persons should vote and after that all people should vote on the constitution whom the constitutional con-stitutional convention should authorize ito i-to vote therein Politic in the Constitution Ogden lilies followed Judge Boreman j He prefaced his remarks by saying that if politics had not mingled so freely free-ly I in the formation of the constitution j constitu-tion there would be no necessity oJ i appearing before the court todeterminp I just what was intended He insisted that the enabling act expressly provided I provid-ed for two classe of voters viz AJl j who were entitled to vote for delegates Ito I-to the constitutional convention and i the qualified electors of the proposed Ii state He said that the supreme court of the United States had ruled that it was incumbent upon a court to giv effect to every word and clause of a statute In this case in order to do that it was absolutely necessary to go I to the constitution of the proposed state to ascertain who the qualified voters were Speaking of the authority of a constitutional convention to fix the qualification of voters he said that he found that as many a ten states had conferred the right to vote upon all citizens who were qualified under I the provisions of the constitution Arthur Ilromis Argument Arthur Brown followed in behalf Qt Mr Tyree After a brief reference to the origin of constitutional authority I ahd citations of numerous cases from ancient and modern history hp rook nn the question as to who was authorized I to form a constitution He said that i the enabling act authorized the people of Utah to form a constitution vVhom I does that mean The men women and I children Thev are all people Certainly I j Cer-tainly not The term the people i meant certain persons and under the I enabling act it meant the qualified voters I vot-ers of the territory Utah at that 1 time They were to form and adopt a 1 constitution c I He took up the enabling act and insisted in-sisted that it granted authority to certain cer-tain persons viz the male voters o I the territory of Utah Here the court I asked MA Brown if he understood the j enabling act to limit his right to vote I i for or against the constitution say in St George Mr Brown answered this I in the negative saying that the right to vote under tho i I enabling act remained i l re-mained the same as it was under the I I i existing law except as expressly provided j i j I pro-vided in the enabling act This exception i I ex-ception meant certain persons who were disqualified on account of the rio I lation o tho EdmunsTucker law i i Speaking again of the people of the I territory s referred to in the enabling act he said it meant tho voters anJ j only the voters I Iinlufo Hciulenson Judge Henderson addressed the court in behalf of Mrs Anderson He said he agred with Mr Varian that the con i i stitutional sttutonal convention possessed no authority that except granted in the enabling act that in fact the sovereignty in this instance was vested I in the people of the United States and could be granted by Congress alone and that if I the convention did any thing not authorized by Congress i was void He held however that I Congress had authorized the convention conven-tion to form a constitution and ton consttuton provide pro-vide provisionally for the formation of a state government and that the government of the state should remain re-main in abeyance but when the constitution con-stitution became operative then the state government became alive He held that the inhabitants of the terri tory of Utah should become the state of Utah and not the territorynot the I land merely There was nothing in the enabling act which conveyed any other idea save that the people should become the state and he read the first 1 section of the enabling act that the inhabitants etc should do certain I things and become the state of Utah i A 1renoslerons Idea I Referring to the qualification of voters he insisted that the idea that the constitution should provide for the I qualification of voters and prescribe the same and the convention by ordinance ordi-nance should enact that officers should be elected by only a part of the voters who would be authorized to vote under the constitution was to his mind preposterous pre-posterous That officers should be elected and hold office for from five to seven years after the state is admitted afer admited and only a portion of the qualified electors having chosen them was contrary to reason and common sense Referring to the declaration that no force could be given to the constitution until after it had been adopted he referred to ar tide 9 of the constitution consttuton which provides pro-vides that there shall be an election electon held for a representative in Congress in November 1895 at the same time that the constitution is voted on tme I Continued on Page 3 LL WOMEN I BE VOTERS A Continued from Pago 1 the constitution was not to be considered con-sidered as in force provisionally the judge wished to know where there was any authority for voting for district judges by districts or state senators or representatives The right of women to vote was authorized by the enabling en-abling act so the judge said and the convention had the right to confer porj them the right to vote at the first election and as the convention had recnacted the same provision of the enabling act they certainly had the right to vote now Franklin S Richard P S Richards followed Judge lIen derson He insisted that the law in his op > ion was very plain It provided pro-vided that the voters of the proposed state of TTtah should vote on the ado > tion of he constitution and for state officers The 1 inguage in the first part of section sec-tion 2 of the enabling act provided for one class of voters but when reference was made to the voters of the pro ppsrd state it meant another class viz those who would be qualified under the constitution and it was the duty of the court to give effect to both I provisions when it could he done without with-out causing a conflict To all intents and purposes the coming election was n election under the state government not the territory Congress had fJ Jd rtain persons should vote as 1 II as all others who might be au tc rIzed by the constitutional convention conven-tion and it meant that no matter who might vote at the first election the class named in the first part of sccton 2 of the enabling act men disfranchised under the Edmunds law should not be deprived of the privilege privi-lege V L Williams Closed Hon P L Williams closed the argument argu-ment in behalf of the respondent Tyrec He cited a case where a constitutional con-stitutional convention was authorized Ito I-to submit amendments to a state constitution con-stitution in accordance with the terms of the general law but the convention I conven-tion made a special provision for the 1 ratification or rejection of the amendments amend-ments and the courts held that the election was void because the convention conven-tion had no power to submit the amendments by a special provision In other words the convention could exer dst no authority other than that ox pr < sly grantod He said that there was no provision in the enabling act expressly or by implication which repealed re-pealed the law of Congress which disfranchised dis-franchised women He cited the fact I tha certain male voters were I expressly reenfranchised by the enabling act but there was nothing that by implication I ould be made to mean that women I were reenfranchised Why he asked I if Congress wanted women to vote did I it not say so specially when it was reenfranchising a certain class of males He called attention to what was meant by the term the people as used in the enabling act and eited a ° ase where the question was decided by the courts to be that where the term the people was used as it wash was-h i it meant the qualified voters arid as the qualified voters had been expressly designated to mean the male citizens of Utah over the age of 21 years of age wherever the terms the people or the qualified voters were 11sed it meant male voters The con rntion could not confer the right of suffrage on any other class at the first election He insisted that the term th proposed state was used for and meant the same as the term the said territory of Utah and to give it that fcanmS the enabling act was very S ar and explicit in its provisons Replying to the declaration of Mr Richards that the election this fall would be under > the state he wished to know if the constitution should be rejected re-jected would we be under the state or the territory In closing Mr Williams declared that until the president issued his proclamation the constitution would he of no force whatever and until un-til then only those who were qualified to vote a provided by the enabling act could exercise that privilege This closed the case and Judge Smith announced that he would hand clnvn his decision tomorrow at 1 oclock |