Show THE MANDAMUS CASES judge zane gave his decision in the mandamus cases december 18 the opinion was rendered in a rambling style but the substance was about as follows wa the question at issue was whether the acts of the registrar were judicial or ministerial the complainant henry cumberland had said that he wanted to register if en titled tilled to do so he was advised to lake counsel he exhibited a certificate of naturalization which was objected to by the registrar who advised him to get an endorsement from the present clerk the registrar should have filled out a blank oath for the plaintiff on the first a made and when he refused registration later the plaintiff went to the registrars house and insisted that he be registered morris refused to register him and referred him to the last week in december when an office would be opened and due notice given was it the specific duty of the defendant to have registered plaintiff the utah commission issued a circular which is a fair construction of the law and u uder this the registrars were acting by this circular the registration commenced monday nov 4 and ended before december 16 16 judge zane reviewed the circular at some length and said that the registrar was required when a voter was objected to to have a hearing this raised him to the rank of a judic judicial i al officer but before this point is reached his office is aerial the registration officer has hao no discretion then he is not bound to take any oath if he knows the fact lare sare false but if the registrar refuses a man who is entitled to td register he would do so at his peril the discretion of the registrar would protect him when lie he was acting in a judicial capacity but not dot so in a ministerial capacity This was the case under the territorial law congress in 1882 made some additional dis qualifications disqualifications of voters the united states supreme court in substance authorizes the registrars to receive evidence and says in effect that they are not confined to an affidavit if they reject a man for reasonable cau causland seand not dot maliciously they are not dot liable for damages has the act of 1887 made any change that is where the whole question turns the law of 1887 prescribes the form of proof it is by affidavit and as to that the officer has no discretion but the officer ceris is authorized to inquire wh whether ethera a person is guilty or has been convicted of certain oCe offenses noes when ap li cation is made for registration K n regard to this latter clause the registrar should exercise due diligence he has no right to trifle with the rights of the voter which are very important as upon the expression of the voter the government stand none but superficial thoughtless or wicked men would trifle with a voters rights I 1 am of opinion that the registrar can inquire in reference to dis qualifications under the laws of congress it is his duty to make the inquiry so far his acts are not ministerial the mandamus in this case and in that of J H back 9 and nd of wm win J bachman vs E B R clute are hereby denied it devolves on the utah commission to see that these registrars registrar do their duty faithfully e 11 |