Show THE OCEANS GREAT MISTAKE A SHORT snort time ago we replied to some bome e errors which appeared in en an editorial in the chicago inter ocean concerning the election laws of utah the woman suffrage association so was ridiculed by the chicago paper for objecting to the dis f ranchi franchie ement bement of the women of utah the inter ocean odean taking the ground that the proposed legislation wasat vasal wab was almed aimed med against polygamy we proved that thia this was a mistake because under the edmunds law all polygamists both male and female and including every person r on who had ut at anytime any tima lived iirth in the e relation wem were already prevented from voting and therefore the proposed abolition of woman stiff eustage rage in utah was aimed against women not personally connected with polygamy the tha inter ocean made some bome a assertions sert ions in regard to the utah woman suffrage law which we showed were incorrect for instance it added to it a section of an altogether different law passed eighteen years previously the object being to make it appear that women under twenty one years of age could vote in utah providing only that they were married we pointed out this unfair and erroneous method of assault and explained the true status of the law now comes the inter ocean with an answer to the news and says lwe we quoted the tha territorial suffrage Baffi rage raga act sot exactly as it is given in the to ro cords and to our oun statement that the added section has no reference refe rence renca to the right of suffrage that paper says bays af we give the statement for what it is ia worth remarking that it has been asserted time and time again that hundreds of mormon women have voted under cover of the clause all ali minors minona obtain their majority I 1 by marriage we ask tho the NEWS if these statements aro tire true have mormon women under age ever voted in utah if not it wili will be easy to say soai so awe we insist that we publia published lied the tM mormon ormon suffrage law word for word as it is given in the reference books we reassert re assert that proposed legislation against this law is against polygamy and not against woman suffrage 11 it will be ba observed that the inter ocean does not meet our statement fairly and Equa squarely rely roly we found no fault with its ils quotation of the woman suffrage act what we objected to was the addition to it of a section of another law which has no connection with or application to it this the inter ocean doss does not deny suppose an act is passed defining a crime and fixing its pa nalty and in quoting it an editor should clip out a clause from a law passed eighteen bews yews previously la in reference to a totally different of fence and tack it on to his first quotation for the purpose of sustaining an argument against it aud when corrected should maintain that he had quoted the first named law word for word how much honesty would thero there be in such a course and what would hla hid argument be bedworth worth we repeat that the law defining the responsibility of minors and using the age at which majority shall be reached for the purpose of making legal contracts has nothing whatever to do with the law passed eighteen yeum yeun years afterwards providing that one of the qualifications of a woman voter shall bo be that she must be of the age of twenty one years yeara technically tho the inter ocean has quoted the woman suffrage law as it appears on the statute book actually and morally it bas has false faise fled fied tho the record by adding to it something that does not belong there in any sense or for any purpose and which was attached by the ohe inter ocean mccan to convey an impression contrary to the intent ot of the law and contrary to the practice and now let iet letus us contrast the bearings of the two enactments the law of 1852 provides that for the tha purpose of making valid contracts minors minora shall reach their majority by marriage the law of 1870 provides that women may vote and d that among other qualifications they must bo be twenty one years of ago nao nothing Is ia said in the latter law about majority 31 the word Is not used in it the definite minimum age of df a woman voter Is stated what legitimate connection connect lort lork can car be ba i claimed for the two enactments none nona whatever they are for separate and distinct purposes and one has hab no bearing 0 or effect upon the other but wo we are asked to state whether mormon women under age have ever voted in utah and we are told that if not it is eaby easy to bay any 9 indeed could tho the editor of the Infer inter Odean answer the question havo have any gentile male persons voted underage under age in chicago if so BO he must be very familiar with the tho birth and doings of a great many people whom he has never met we can answer the tho question truthfully in this way bo sa far as we are aware there has been no such voting inn r butia but bul if there has been it was contrary to the law and to the general understanding the dispute is the law not its violation tho the inter ocean oc eart eari tried to make it appear that the law allows voting by minor women whereas the law prohibits it but cut to make the matter still plainer we refer to the registration act of thia territory under der that no woman can vote unless she bhe swears that bhe she la Is twenty one years of age how much moro more binding can the law be made we think that it is followed implicitly we have every reason to believe that women in utah do not attempt to register or vote whether they are married or single if under twenty one years of age ago the question has beon bean asked in times past if they had tho the right to do so ezo and invariably answered to the contrary I 1 in a the publio public prints and the central committee of the peoples party have div en general instructions on this and other points of law in regard to elections the position of th the e inter ocean in reference to it is an error the source from which it derived its suppo supposed bed zed information wab waa wilful and deliberate falsehood now as to its insist enoa that tha proposition to disfranchise the women of utah is against polygamy and not against woman suffrage no women are now permitted to vote in ut utah who are a re or ever have bean been plural wives to disfranchise the present voters then cannot be ba a movement against polygamy and must be aga against inist woman suffrage and tha that nione alone the edmunds law was directed against polygamy in that it dig dis franchised both men and wom cd practically connected therewith but the new edmunds bill proposes to disfranchise the women who are not in polygamy yand and does not propose to disfranchise the non men therefore it certainly Is against woman and not against polygamy the zmer infer mccan may insist all ail it pleases plea piea bes leg and may assert and reassert re assert esmert its illogical and disingenuous statement statements but the plain facts and the tha inevitable conclusions clu ciu are against it and we rea ask that it will put this thia matter right before its rea readers derso and not suffer the kes kea into which it has fallen further to deceive that considerable portion of the public which is 13 influenced by its utter ances |