| Show LAWLESS obstruction AT THE POLLS THE obstructions interposed to prevent alfree free expression of the popular hii wul at the polls jolls in brigham city on monday Aton day ought to be promptly treated as the law directs there can be no q question that the intent of the persons who interrupted voters on that occasion was to prevent the polling of as many peoples votes as to eota establish blish a precedent as to the kind of challenges that might be allowed and there can be no doubt that chal fenaes were permitted that were unlawful and that amounted to a disturbance tur bance of the election and an interference it arence with the free exercise of the elective franchise we pass b bj consideration of the character of 07 the creature who I 1 abed as tool for foi the leaguers XI I 1 I 1 t has u unlawful work of ob tion that bat will keep for a future occasion occasion let us ins lookyat look at the nature of t the challenges the utah commissioners who sent instructions to the judges of election tit at brigham city called their attention to the provisions of the utah statutes allowing challenges at the polls and gave as their opinion that the I 1 j judges d es of elert loa on a challenge len ge bag beine lade made it at the polls may interrogate ter rogate the voter under aatu to be administered b by the presiding judge and may mat propound I 1 to himi alm orally such pertinent questions as are reasonably calculated to determine whether or not he Is a qualified voter under the laws of utah and the laws lawa of the united states fixing t the 1 e qualification ofa of j voters in this herrl territory ory ll 11 this Is as they must adamita stretch of authority which cannot be justified by the langu language gge of any law jaw either or of the territory or of the united states the challenges permitted by the territorial laws are to be allowed to any qualified voter and decided by the judges there io ia nothing in the law that authorizes oral catechization by the election judges in that capacity or the administration of any oath oat as to such challenges the only oath that is now lawful as a qualification for or voters is that provided in the act of log congress CoT congress gress just passed we are aware hat the utah butali commissioners have tried their hands bands at manufacturing illegal oaths for elections and we are also aware as they must bethought be though they do not seem to te be abashed at the knowledge that the supreme court of the united states sat down upon them with emphasis for their illegal and presumptions doings y the utah statutes relied on for the right to challenge are these challenges shall be allowed at the polls for cause by any qualified voter and tile the judge of election shall hear ana and immediately decide upon any challenge that may be made compiled laws p 87 we will not raise the question as to athe the repeal af this provision but bat treat tread it as existing the election law of 1878 which it is undoubtedly in force provides in section thirteen that the ballot offered by a kotershall vot voter ershall ahall be placed in the box on the name of the proposed voter being belaj found on the registry list and on all challenges to such vote being decided in favor of such voter r there Is fg no provision for catechi zina the voter nor gor administering any oath in F regard e ard to the challenge that may maybe be 0 offered rd by a qualified voter and ordin ary sense w wib see that it is s im improper proper f that the j judge 4 lie should be at once the challenger and objector imd and the official 0 o decide the e questions in an dispute the e aci 9 congress fon gress provides the oath no other can be ae lawfully administered as a condition to voting any other is is 4 an imposition and an obstruction un less it be interposed for alleged bribery I 1 ut suppose that the judge 62 4 elec b tion is as authorized to challenge u voter aswell ww ellas as sit as judge of bis own chal tage what must baust oe be the ground of c challenge al lenge no ne mattir matter by whom inter posed closed thelah the law tays it must most be for cause 11 what cause why for legal cause what then are the legal that may be beal al lebed i grounds for challenge the tio w law says go person shall toe be entitled to yote vote Y election in sald said territory or be Ch capable pable of 6 3 ury service or hold hol any office of trust or emolument in ial baid territory Wh who shall oshall not have taken the t or aforesaid No person who shall have bien been of any a primp ader this under the act of approved march 22 or who shall be a polygamist or 0 capr wiio shall associate or cohabit with persons odthe of the ether other sex shall be entitled to vote in any e election e action in said territory or b be pl ca capable a of I 1 jury ury service or to hold zi any y oce of bf trust or emolument in said territory 11 1 11 I 1 the only lawful challenge challene then thea must be in reference to foregoing the A voter maybe may be challenged who has not taken the oath provided or who is a polygamist or who associates or cohabits obits with persons of the other sex or who has been convicted of any crime under the edmunds act actor or the latest amendment to it 1 or who Is guilaf ot of giving or taking a bribe affecting the election but here are some of the chel challenges lenges presented and allowed ay by y the I 1 judges ot of elec election tiou at brigham city for refusing to answer which under oath voters who had bad subscribed to the oath oal prescribed b by law were denied the exercise of the elective elective franchise I 1 1 I you have just j ta taken kenan an oath to support the constitution of the united states scales aud and obey the laws thereof i 2 yon mean to say you will obey the constitution and laws as interpreted by the legally constituted courts of the gove government or in other words where the decisions of the courts come in conflict as regards these c rimes crimes with the instructions or laws of your organization chieh would you obey bobiy 3 are you a member of any organization whose laws revelations or instructions you would obey before you would the laws of the united states as against the crimes of bigamy and polygamy 4 do you now regard as binding upon your honor or conscience any oath that you vou have formerly taken that is in conflict cOn flitt with the one to which you have just I 1 sworn and subscribed 5 are you a member of uny nv society or organization whose pretended revelations from god would influence you to committie commit the crimes of bigamy or Bily gamy states as against the laws ol of the the whole of this catechization with the oath required to be taken in relation to it was unlawful and designed to disturb the election members of the peoples party part had bad as much right to challenge the chief disturber on that occasion as to his viola violations tiong of law and decency in davis davia county Jou nty or to his bis membership in the half dollar league or to his connection with secret societies pledged to toworu work for the destruction of a religious organization the law has provisions for the tae protection of the legal voters antl and they should be enforced in this instance section 28 of the election ia law of 1878 provides any amy person who shall disturb or be guilty of any riotous conduct at any election 1 q action in this territory or who shall disturb or interfere with the canvassing of the votes or interfere with the making of the returns or who shall interfere with any voter in the free exercise of the elective shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor the words we have put in emphasize the breach of the law committed by those who interposed sad and permitted the unlawful chal challenging on challenging lenling monday the judges of ejection on are required to take an oath that they will iu studiously endeavor to prevent any fraud deceit or abuse at any election over which they may preside I 1 of 1878 section 9 the same law provides in section 26 that any person who having n upon any anhof of the offices or duties provided for in this act shall wilfully tail fail or neglect to perform any of the duties required of such officer or person shall be deemed guilty of a 41 felony I 1 ard on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the lie sum of one thousand dollars or be eim imprisoned eding so ned in the penitentiary not exceeding two years 11 that the judges of election at brigham city who permitted the abuse in that disturbance and aad interference with the free exercise of the elective frap franchise chIse on monday rendered themselves liable to the penalties of the law iest be evident to every impartial person who considers we hd matter we we now ow as ask k the utah commissioners who went to brigham city as is stated to supervise the election which they had bad no more right to do than a c couple of strangers whether they think it Is proper and prudent for them to connive at such proceedings as obstructed a full and free vote veto on monday AOn day Is not the law Is severe enough to suit anem if congress would not permit in the test oath for voters such provisions as wo would 41 d trench on a voters belief or membership in a church why should the utah commission md and countenance the interposition ot of tests in addition to sud ond outside of the law this matter can soon be settled b by their influence without a resort to litigation that may not reflect any great credit on their course although they have no legal authority to sit to in judgment on such matters yet et they have assumed to instruct t the e judges of election whom they are authorized to appoint in re relation latton to their duties and a word from them will be received by their appointees and prevent a repetition of the improper and aad unlawful proceedings which obstructed the brigham city election will the they speak that word or must the whole matter bp be ventilated aud and complaints be forwarded to the highest executive authority tho rity as well as suits be planted in defence of the rights of citizens who are willing to comply with the law but not to submit to lawless interference with their legal rights we think the leading men of the peoples party should take lake immediate steps to determine this question toe ane rightson rights right of voters must be maintained it the utah commissioners intend to stand u up lor for Is lair and free and lawful e elections bons and throw raw their influence on the side of aw and order and against obstruction and undue interference it should be known if they purpose aidau aiding tese and abetting such proceedings as those of monday that occurred under their own on notice it is time that this should be understood and necessary measures be taken at once to cor the evil anyhow it is the duty and should be the purpose of every true and active member of too the peoples party to unite for the vindication of lot the rights of citizens against the lawless and impudent obstruction which is part of the of their ege enemies mies take time by the forelock androve and move in the right direct direction ibn without delay |
