Show HIT lots DOES bill believed that question had bad boen been satisfactorily settled by the discussion eng engaged aged in juit after president HA nuisoN issued his hia amnesty proclamation this paper pape r then advanced the claim first among the utah journals that amnesty restored a citizen rete receiving iving it to the full rights of citizenship und the lulng ru ing of the united stales supreme court in relation to the matter cited by us ns was qui quite te extensively quoted jt was noticeable at that time that the only news papers which coute contended that amnesty did not carry the rights of citizenship with it were Damoc ratio journals without a single exception as we remember me iber it tho democratic organs hold held that franchised disfranchised dis polygamists vote or hold bold office wo we have hava also in our office a little pamphlet issued just before the november Hov embar election when amnesty was being expected and signed by leading democratic Damo Domo cratic attorneys which declared hat at poly polygamists amista could no vote if they shourd should receive amnesty I 1 that was evidently evid enily issued because the th e democrats Demo cratt feared the vote of enfranchised lat latter ter day saints they know that hat the former polygamists ista were the leading men man of utah and of such ench ability and character that tho the people would be glaia glad to ti bic elect c t them to again it if their political rights were ie restored stored hence we must r regard e the action of democrats in declaring amnesty ineffective in the light of an attempt at r self preserve tion which is one of the firt laws of nature af pf course there ig ia an inherent herent 4 quality in democracy which makes its ita members opposed to almost everything beneficent so there was but little liitle surprise when democrats in than took a stand apparently i opposed to I 1 ats rec receiving eivin their political rights ani and viewed alss als antho in 1 ight that they were working to retain the offices icee off there is a shadow of an excuse fur for their action th that j oa ought ht to be considered in view of the position of tha utah democracy on the amnesty que question ion and aad that all its leading le legal leal al in lumio MIU aries have de declared cared that tho arp pp si chenta pardon does not resto restore tho rights of citizenship it is bt brut to be expected that the utah 1 commission emission which is i s now democratic Demo craic sh also alao express its doubt donata on the question sad ancl refer the matter to the attorney general judge dikea ZA anra rulings are areef of course of small moment these theao days when a lot of offices are at st stake ake governor THOMASS recognition of the tha amnesty is no pre precedent c eden 7 oar jurdem dem friends will wriggle le and twist at this matter until we fear many republicans will this fall le ie deprived of the right to vota tote that 7 would at least be the result if some men in utah who are aspiring to tho the jud judgeship were to g give I 1 vo the ahe opinion UZI od lor instead cf attorney attorney y goa gan oral eral OLNEY they the v haye already decided over their signature that the amnesty does not give the ri liht ht to vote wo we shall await with some interest the opinion of the attorney general to sea it if he ha sustains his democratic brother broth or attorneys here he 8 in in utah |