| Show ONCE A polygamist NOT ALWAYS A polygamist registrars and other election officers should take notice that the have no authority in law or in any instructions from the utah commission from whom they received their appointment to deny to a present monogamist or widower the right to be registered and to vote on the ground that he was once a polygamist ga inist also that they are liable under the laws of congress and of the territory of utah to criminal prosecution and a suit for damages if they do so once a poleg always a polygamist is untrue in fact and in law the supreme court of the united states has ruled on this question and decided that the assumption is wrong in the cue case of murphy vs ramsey bamsey et al the court ruled as follows it is not therefore because the person has committed the offense of bigamy or polygamy at some previous tune time in violation of some existing statute and as an additional punishment for its commission that he is franchised disfranchised dis by the act bea of tigress of march 22 I 1 1882 nor because se be is guilly of the 0 offense as a defined define d and pun lahod by the terms of that act but because having at some time entered into a bigamous or polygamous relation by a marriage with a second or third wife while the first was living he still maintains it and has not dissolved it although for the time being he restricts actual cohabitation to but one he might in fact abstain from actual cohabitation with all and be still as much as ever a bigamist or polygamist he can only cease to be such auch when he be has finally and fully dissolved in some effectual manner which we are not called on here to poin printout tout the very relation of husband to several wives which constitutes the forbidden status he has previously ws us fumed the disfranchisement operates upon the existing state and condition u of th the person eperson and not upon a past of wo it is therefore not retrospective he fie alone is deprived of his hia vote who when he offers to register is then in the state and condition of a bigamist or polygamist or is then actually cohabiting ha with more than one woman in addition to the ruling of the supreme court of the united 8 ates by which all courts and judicial officers are bound to be governed the utah commission have issued a ruling which has bas been and now Is is in force as regards all the officers appointed by the commission it is as foll follows the disfranchisement operates ope raes upon on the existing state and condition of 0 the person and not upon a past offense it la is therefore not retrospective he alone is deprived of A his vote who when he offers to register is then in the state and condition of a bigamist or polygamist or is then actually cohabiting with more than one woman but a bigamist or polygamist ami at is such a person as is described in paragraph two above paragraph 2 referred to above W was as as follows A bigamist or polygamist wt in the sense of the ath section of the edmunds law is a man who has entered into the state of plural marriage at any time in the past and still maintains that relation rel a tion it not I 1 having caving been dissolved by death divorce or other effectual manner and he is still a polygamist even though he restricts his cohabitation to but one woman so that no registration or election officer can plead justification j justification in law or in the proper discharge of d in directions from his superiors in office for the deprivation of the right to vote which many peoples party citizens have suffered in addition to all this chief justice zane has ruled further upon the matter wm win B bennett of west jordan was tried october 28 1889 in the third dist district rl ct court for illegal voting the ground of the charge was that he was a polygamist because his former plural wife was still living and that though he had separated from her he could be nothing else than a polygamist unless the president pardoned pardon ed him this was urged by the strongest counsel the liberals 1 could engage judge zane reviewed the proposition and said the question is what is the meaning of the term polygamist as used in the statute and what is necessary to terminate that relationship in a general sense a man is a polyp polygamist mist who practices polygamy or maintains that it is right but that is probably too general a definition for this statute in the case of murphy vs ramsey kamsey the united states supreme court said the law did not apply to those who went into polygamy before there was a low law against it but to those who wera actually in the relationships relationship a man I 1 must actually have a plurality of wives to be a polygamist WL the fao of cohabitation is not a feature in determining the meaning of the term A man ceases to be a polygamist when he fully and finally terminates the relationship the way to accomplish this is not pointed out so the question is what is necessary to cause a cessation of the polygamous flous relation can the relation exist where the parties have not only ceased ceased to cohabit but have separated in good faith that is does it exist because of the former relationship to maintain a relationship requires some acton act of the mind to continue aba condition that is consenting to recognize more than one woman as abife does a man recognize a woman as his wife when she is not and they have separated in good faith the supreme court holds to the idea that there must be a recognition that is that a man must recognize plural wives as wives if the parties publicly say they separate and their conduct shows they are acting in good faith that it is an effective separation the question as to good faith will be for the theary jury to determine the section regarding amnesty or pardon does not seem to have any connection with this question these parties might obtain amnesty and yet continue the polygamous relation the evidence on that point will be admitted the question is whether these parties have separated and in good raith faith dissolved the relationship now under this ruling and these definitions how can a man who now has but one wife or no wife at all be lawfully treated as a polygamist what more effectual manner than by death or divorce can a man be released from former plural family relations yet men who are now widowers or have but one wife living have been stricken from th the e registration lists under the pretense that they once had more wives than one and are therefore polygamists and excluded by the edmunds law A church divorce showed that mr bennett and his plural wife had bad separated in good faith the point was made that as the plural marriage was not recognized in law it needed no legal divorce to dissolve it the defend defendant aut was was acquitted and the law as interpreted by the courts was established in this territory that once a mist is NOT always a polygamist and that no citizen is franchised disfranchised dis by the law for polygamy who sit at the time of his bis offering to register is not then a man having more than one wife living and or who cohabits with more than one woman now then registration or any other election officers who prevent a lawful voter from being registered or casting his ballot at the polls may be prosecuted and sued for damages we hope some present monogamist but former polygamist will test this thin in the courts in his ble ov n behalf and in behalf of hu hundred adre d of life friends who have been robbed of the sacred right of franchise by officers who should work impartially for the public good but have worked instead for part izan purposes with the hope of party reward in the shale shae of official laurels and fishes put them through |
