History of Utah, 1540-1886 - Brigham Young University

ACTS OF GOVERNOR MURRAY. 689
was not a citizen of the United States, 25 notwithstanding
that he held a certificate of citizenship. Thus the
chief magistrate took upon himself a function alto-
congress. For papers in the case, see House Misc. Doc, 47th Cong. 1st Sess.,
no. 25. The seat was declared vacant, and in 18S2 John T. Caine was elected.
In 18S4 he was reelected. Mr Caine was a native of Kirk Patrick, in the Isle
of Man, where he was born in 1829. Arriving in New York in 1846, not as a
proselyte, but as an emigrant, he joined the church in the spring of 1S47,
about the time when the pioneers set forth from Council Bluffs. In September
1852 he reached Salt Lake City, and found occupation as a school-teacher
at Big Cottonwood. Soon afterward he was employed in the office of the
trustee in trust, and in that capacity won the confidence of Brigham Young.
Sent on a mission to the Sandwich Islands in 1854, he Mas appointed after his
return assistant secretary of the legislative council. In 1S74 he was elected
a member of that body, being reelected for the three ensuing terms. Tullidge's
Mag., ii. 4GS-73.
For laws regulating elections, see Utah Election Laws, 1S78, 18S2. In
1884 the Utah legislature consisted of 12 counsellors and 24 representatives,
elected biennially on the first Monday in August of every odd year, the sessions
commencing on the second Monday in January of every even year, and
lasting for not more than GO days. For list of members elected in 18S3, see Utah
Gazetteer, 1884, p. 268. In 1878 a criminal procedure act was passed, and in
1870 a civil practice act, the text of which is given in Utah Laws, 1878, 60-165;
Utah Acts Legist., 17-124. For further acts, proceedings, and memorials of
the Utah legislature, see Utah Laics and Utah Acts Legist., 1870, pp. 11-12,
133, 146, 148; 1872, 25-6, 41-2; 1878, 27-37, 169-70; 1880, 45, 95-6; 1S82,
106, passim; Utah Jour. Legist. , 1872, pp. 23-4, 1876, 24-5, 31, 104-5; 1878,
36, 45-6, 225-6, 339, passim.
25 S. F. Call, Jan. 9, 1SS1. As the reader is probably aware, the Edmunds
act was declared constitutional by the supreme court of the United States.
For decision, see S. F. Alta, March 24, 1885. For arguments against the act,
see, among others, the speech of Gen. Jos. E. Brown of Georgia, Jan. 11, 18S4,
in Cong. Globe; Utah Defence Constit. and Religious Rights; Stillman's The
Mormon Question; Barclay's Mormonism Exposed; Utah and its People (by
an ex-U. S. official); Goodrich's Mormonism Unveiled; Black's Federal Jurisdiction
in the Territories. Senator Brown's argument is very forcible, though
perhaps a little strained. Quoting the clause in the constitution, which reads,
'Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law,' he cites Blackstone's Comin., 36, ' Offices which are a right to
exercise a public or private employment, and to take the fees and emoluments
thereto belonging, are also incorporeal hereditaments,' etc. So the chief
justice in 2 Ala., N. S., p. 31, remarks, An office is as much aspeciesof property
as anything else capable of being held or owned.' Comparing other provisions
of the act with the U. S. constitution, he quotes Judge Strong in the
case of Huber vs Reily, in Smith's Pennsylvania Repts, iii. 117. 'There are, it
is true, many things which they [judges of election] may determine, such as
age and residence of a person offering to vote, whether he has paid taxes.'
'But whether be has been guilty of a criminal offence, and as a consequence
forfeited his right, is an inquiry of a different character. Neither our constitution
nor our law has conferred upon the judges of elections any such judicial
functions.' Thus with other features of the bill. As the senator remarks,
'There are probably twenty times as many persons practicing prostitution, or
illegal sexual intercourse, in the other parts of the union as the whole number
who practice it in Utah.' For arrests, prosecutions, and convictions under
the Edmunds act, and cases of persons committed for contempt for refusing
to answer questions under Chief Justice Zane's ruling, see S. L. C. Tribune,
Nov. 4, 7, 1884; S. F. Alta, Oct. 4, 8, 1884; Jan. 25, Apr. 14, 1885; S. F.
Chronicle, Jan. 31, Apr. 30, May 10, 23, 1S85; S. F. Call, Nov. 8, May 23,
Hist. Utah, ii