| OCR Text |
Show eIB ONCE A POLYfilMIVT NOT HH tm its a roi.xajusT. IK lUgi-trara and other election offi- ! KB cerw tfiotild take notice that thc- BgB liaveno authority, inlaw orinany i. WM intnutions from the Utah Coin- Jj &g mission from whom tLc-y received t H their apioiniment,ta Icuy to a pres- j cut monogamist or widower the ", B3 right to be registered and to ote, on PJ tho ground that lie was once a poly-J. poly-J. $ Km!-t. Alo that they are liable ; ;j& under the laws of Congress and of j ?$j the Territory of Utah to criminal j '5 -inisecutiou and a suit fur damages ' Kr ifthtydoso. i j -'Once a pol gimist always a & pobgami-t," is untrue in fact ami g inlaw. The Supreme Court of the :MEJ United States has ruled on tills fflft uestio:i and decided that the a-SJIX'' a-SJIX'' i-unii .tiou is wrong. apgL In tlie case of Murpliy .vs. Ram- g?? T et - lI Court ruled as ful- 3&M loWK iSWf "It is not- therefore, because the rMu& person hat oo-nm.ttod tha oiTense of WBtip biparny or pol'sauiy, at botno ire- eMBSS -vlou-j tune, in violation of soraaex- "JjfeSi Ittinrr statute, and as an additional 1wb punishment for its commission, that -$Ij5 he is disfranchised by the art of Con- ifirai cress of March 2 IS!; nor because Me heisr-uil.yof the offense as define! liBRSt - and punished by the terms of thatac, aK but because, bavins at somo time cfigjci entered into a hig-mous or TKdyg- s3ifs anions relation by a mintage with a 'Sfyt second or third wife while tho first was li mz, tie AtUl nainiatns tr t has not S. Jii'oiccl a, although for the time be- jM$ ins be restricts actual cohabitation 'o al batoue. He miht in fact abuim J J i- from actual cohabitation with all. and 38 I be Mill as much es oirrn bigamistor wjgi polj-fiaml. He can onlv omsotolw 'M C such when he lias finally and fuUv jayyl dissolved In soma efloctml manner. Wje k which wo are not called on here (o JJK f point oat, tne very relation of husband jtfjj k to -evaral wives, which conslitut&a tho 9S I forbldilec states he has previously asms! as-ms! t turned. WE S ""Tho dlffranchiftnrcni operates 9E upon the existing state and condltioa SR of the person and not upon a ptst of- 9 feuse. Mb . K It Is, therefore, not retrospective. Sgf Healoneiidspriredof his voto who, JEM'' when ho on-rs to rejrKer, is then in . thesv0 anj canduion of a btraumt " or polysamUt. or is then actuallv co- m&M babiuiiK wuh more than one o- JB4j man." Bgg In addition to the ruling of the B& Supreme Courtor Uio United S ate-. W by whldi all courts and Judicial Wt otlittrsaro bound to be governed. USjg the Utah Uotuml'sion have issued a ruling which has brxii and now i Bt "" force as regarJs ail the oflicer Kf appointed by the Commission. H 1 1 U as Jollo w: K "The disfranchisement ojiera'es Kg' - "Pon tho Misting Mato and condition K of the person, and no: upon a past of- H feuse. It Ls, therefore not iwnnpet- WSS tn-e. Ho alone is depnieil of his WmS vote "ho, when he offers to register, Rlf then in the Mate and condition nf a Sjf& bigamist or poly gaimst. or is then ac- "ffig tually cohabiting with more than one HB woman. But a bigamist or lIyg- fK amkt is sQch a person as is pecn bed "HJF in paragrapli two aliove." HJF' .Paragraph 2, referred to above, "K" was as f .IIo s: By "A bigamist (or jiolygamist) in the flfjf -n-e of tho sth section of tho lil- Wt& mundilaw.isamin who has entered 15m in'othoststeof plural marriagoat any K time in the past and Mill maintains Bf that relation it not having been dis- Ej solved by death divorce, or otheref- " footual manner' and he is Mill a JK polyganiist, even 'though ho restricts - his cohabitation to but one w oman. " I So tliat no registration or election ofllcer-can l4ea.I justiEcaiioti in law , or in tlicproj)erdi-'cInre of dutj.or In uircttlons from his superiors in ctlice, for the deprivation of the right to vote which many PeopleV Party citi;-ns hive iuHVred. In adJition to all f i-, Cliia Justice Zane has ruled further upon the matter. Wm. It. Uennctt, n kR West Jordan, as tried Octuiitr 2b ffi" IS59, in the Tnird District Court W forill.-gal voting. The ground of A '!le charge was that he was a poly,; S amisf, becausu his former plural m wife- was still living and that, rM Uiougli he had iejeratHi fro:a Iltr S lie could bo aothtii- il-e than a fP ' po'j'tiaml-t, uiiIim tho President H parddict him. This was urged lij iK thBstronzettcounrf.Uho"f.nuui-j) 5 could engage. 1 Judge Ziue reviewed the proiw- i I siUon and said: I 'Tho question is, wuat U the man- I t in5of the t-rm polygamisi,a, nsj in I f U, statute, and what is nece.sarv to I ft terminate that rf'sukmship? In a I L Ksneral sena m is a j I ft wh0 Practices polygamy, or ma n jms I .. hat " is "Sht, but that i, probabu K too general a definifon forthi, statute. m the Uniie.1 Slates Supreme Court id ,t,e H"cii no' pp'y io n,o vho m went into polygamy before there wa. I a lawagainst but to tho, who wer 1 " in the relationship. a , f mn'' ""r haro , pluraUt?" t "T, "Wtanon no: a Sex , J terT'TS lhS m"al' of W "'"" "- tnan caase, to l)e , m povgamlst when he filly anl fi. f nil'--'na-e,thereUuon.hhrtbe i way to accomplish this ool ',' . tarT o causa a cesauoa of tho poiyc W amousreUtionT Can the relation ex- TK istwhoro the parjes have not onI , Wk mgood faith? Thlt is, does iVmM W because of the former relationship? Jjgip To maintain a relatwnshlp reqmre. 3P ""a" of 'be mm J t :, con nuo th- Wr Mnda,hll u nj0-t!ng M re W ogt"-3Iuorthancn3v.omanaa..fe. ' '"an rttrjrof ,aT -jj.jjj !JHflBlBISflBflBCBflBj wife, when too is not, and tbey have i separated in good faith? Tho '-nrreme Coutt holds to tho .dea tfeiUhcromust be a reoosn(tin u,a: li, that a man meat recognizo plural wives ea wiies. If the parties publicly public-ly say they separate, ami ttelr conduct shows the stt acting in good faith, tbt!t Isanefleciiie sepa-ra sepa-ra ion. Tho question as to good faith wiU be for the Jury to determine The" section regarding amnesty or pardon dosnot seem tobaeany eonnectioD with this question. These parties might obtain amnesty, ard y" t continue con-tinue the polygamous relation. The evidence oa that point will be admitted. admit-ted. The question is whether tbee parties hate eprated and in good faith dissolved the relaJonship." I Now, under this ruling and the'e j definition', Itr can a man who bow I has but one nife, or no wife at all, I lie la felly trraltd as a polygamic? I What tuore iCVetual manner than by litfilh ordiv.irce can a niau U-released U-released from furmer Jural family rt billons? Vet men who are now widower" or have but one wif hv nig liave len stricken from the registration li'ts under tho j-etetisr that they oikv had more u i es thin one and are therefore polygaml-ls, and cxchided by the Edmunds law. A Chun.li di voice shotted that Mr. Bennett and hlspiural wifo had teparated in good faith. The point W.S made that as tho plural r-ir riage was not recognized in law it needed no h gal divorce to dis-oive it, the defendant was acquit j t"d, and tin- law as interpreted by the co'irtb" was tlabltehwl in this Territory that onte a polygn-mist polygn-mist is NOT always spolygamb-t, and that no citizen is di-fnutcblceU by the law for polygamy wlm, at the time of li is offering to register, is not then a man having more than one wife living and uuJivorced or who cohabits with more titan one i n omati. Now, then, registration or any j other election officers wito pruventa lawful voter from being; registered or casting liis ballot at ti-e puUsnay be prosecuted and sued for damages. We hope aoaie present DJOoogaauVt but former p-ilygaaust wi.l to.; i this in the courts in Ills ov n uetulf.ind iu liebalf of hundreds of h's friends who have been robbed of tliusacrul right of franchise by cfllcers whosJiould wore imjtartia -ly fjr the public gojd butliave worked instead for partnun imr-poses imr-poses with the hope ff party reward re-ward in the shape of oOicial laurels and fiihes. Tut them through! |
