Murphy v. Ramsey Pratt v. Same Randall v. Same Clawson v. Same Barlow v. Same
Decision Date | 23 March 1885 |
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 747,29 L.Ed. 47,114 U.S. 15 |
Parties | MURPHY v. RAMSEY and others. PRATT v. SAME. RANDALL and another v. SAME. CLAWSON and another v. SAME. BARLOW v. SAME |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 15-16 intentionally omitted] In these actions, five in number, Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G. L. Godfrey, A. B. Carleton, and J. R. Pettigrew, defendants in all, were persons who composed the board appointed under section 9 of the act of congress, approved March 22, 1882, entitled 'An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes.' 22 St. 30. E. D. Hoge, also a defendant in all the cases, was appointed registration officer for the county of Salt Lake, in the territory of Utah, by that board, in pursuance of that section of the act. The other defendants, one of whom is joined in each action, to-wit, Arthur Pratt, John S. Lindsay, Harmel Pratt, and James T. Little, were respectively deputy registration officers in designated election precincts in which the plaintiffs in the actions severally claimed the right to be registered as voters. The object of the actions was to recover damages, alleged to have arisen by reason of the defendants' wrongfully and maliciously refusing to permit the plaintiffs, respectively, to be registered as qualified voters in the territory of Utah, whereby they were deprived of the right to vote at an election held in that territory on November 7, 1882, for the election of a delegate to the forty-eighth congress.
In the case in which Jesse J. Murphy is plaintiff below and appellant here, the complaint is as follows:
'The plaintiff above named complains of the defendants, and, on information and belief, alleges that after the twenty-second day of March, 1882, and prior to the first day of July, 1882, under the provisions of section 9 of an act of the congress of the United States, approved March 22, 1882, and entitled 'An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, In reference to bigamy, and for other purposes,' the president of the United States, by and with the consent of the senate of the United States, duly appointed the defendants, Alexander Ramsey, A. S. Paddock, G. L. Godfrey, A. B. Carleton, and J. R. Pettigrew, to perform the duties mentioned in said section to be performed by a board of five persons, and by virtue of said appointment they became a board of five persons with the powers named in said section.
'And, on information and belief, the plaintiff alleges that after such appointment, and prior to the first day of August, 1882, the last-named five defendants duly qualified as such appointees, came to Utah and organized as a board, and entered u on the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties granted and imposed by said section 9 of said act of congress; that after said organization said five defendants were commonly called 'commissioners,' and are hereinafter referred to and called the 'board of commissioners;' that said board of commissioners afterwards ordered, directed, and supervised a registration of the voters of the territory of Utah, for the general election in said territory, to be held on the seventh day of November, 1882, for the election of a delegate for said territory to the forty-eighth congress, and for such other elections as might be held prior to another registration of voters of said territory, and on or about the tenth day of August, 1882, the said board of commissioners made and published rules providing for said registration, for the appointment of registration officers and judges of election, and the canvass and return of the votes; directed said registration to be made during the week commencing on the second Monday of September, 1882, and, among other rules, willfully and maliciously made and published the following:
'That said board of commissioners also by rules, provided for the appointment of and appointed three judges of election for each election precinct in said territory.
'And, on information and belief, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant E. D. Hoge was appointed registration officer for the county of Salt Lake, in said territory of Utah, and the defendant Arthur Pratt was appointed deputy registration officer for the fourth election precinct of the city of Salt Lake, in said county, and that each accepted the appointment, duly qualified, and respectively acted throughout the said registration as such registration and deputy registration officer.
'And the plaintiff alleges that on the second Monday of September, 1882, the defendant Arthur Pratt, as deputy registration officer for said fourth precinct, in the city and county of Salt Lake, aforesaid, acting under the direction of the other defendants, commenced registering the voters of said precinct and making a registration list of such voters, and continued daily therein until the evening of Saturday of the same week, when the registration was closed.
'And the plaintiff alleges that he is a native citizen of the United States of America, and prior to the twenty-second day of March, 1882, was more than twenty-one years of age; that he has resided continuously in the territory of Utah for more than eleven years, and resided continuously in the fourth precinct of Salt Lake City, in said territory, for more than two years past; that he has, for more than ten years prior to the November election in 1882, lawfully exercised the rights and enjoyed the privileges of the elective franchise in said territory, and has, for more than ten years last past, owned taxable property and been a tax-payer in said territory, and that his name was on the last registration list of the voters of the second precinct, Ogden City, Weber county, Utah, made prior to the second Monday of September, 1882.
'And the plaintiff alleges that he has not, since more than three years prior to March 22, 1882, married, or entered into any marriage contract or relation with, any woman, or in anywise violated the act of congress approved July 1, 1862, defining and providing for the punishment of bigamy in the territories, and has resided continuously and openly in the counties of Weber and Salt Lake, Utah, for ten years last past, and has not violated any of the provisions of the act of congress, approved March 22, 1882, entitled 'An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes;' and that he has not, on or since the twenty-second day of March, 1882, cohabited with more than one woman, and has never been charged with, or accused or convicted of, bigamy or polygamy, or cohabiting with more than one woman, in any court, or before any officer or tribunal.
'And the plaintiff alleges that on the thirteenth day of September, 1882, he personally went before the defendant Arthur Pratt, then acting as deputy registration officer in and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Samuel Downes v. George Bidwell
...its provisions.' See also, to the same effect First Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. ed. 1046; Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 29 L. ed. 47, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747. In Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437, 13 L. ed. 761, it was held that a law of the territory of Iowa, which prohibite......
-
Trop v. Dulles
...v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 5 S.Ct. 747, 29 L.Ed. 47. 21 See Gathings, Loss of Citizenship and Civil Rights for Conviction of Crime, 43 Am.Pol.Sci.Rev. 22 Cf. Davis v. Beaso......
-
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
...United States Supreme Court for help. The Court, however, upheld the disenfranchisement of polygamists, Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44-47, 5 S.Ct. 747, 763-65, 29 L.Ed. 47 (1884), as well as criminal convictions for polygamy and cohabitation, Cannon v. United States, 116 U.S. 55, 78-79, ......
-
Richardson v. Ramirez 8212 1589
...approved exclusions of bigamists and polygamists from the franchise under territorial laws of Utah and Idaho. Marphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 5 S.Ct. 747, 29 L.Ed. 47 (1885); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890). Much more recently we have strongly suggested in di......
-
Felon disenfranchisement: law, history, policy, and politics.
...supra note 63, at 540-41. (65.) Clegg, supra note 14. (66.) Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 346-47 (1890); see also Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (67.) See supra note 57 and accompanying text. (68.) U.S. CONST. amend. XXIV, [section] 1. (69.) William J. Brennan, Jr., Landmarks of Legal Liber......
-
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CHICKEN STEALING: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE PATH TO POLYGAMY.
...base... and it even promises that in time Reynolds will be overruled." Id. at 247. (Douglas J., dissenting). (246)Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (247)Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 333 (1890), overruled by Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). (248) See id. at 342-43, 345, 346-47; see also Fr......
-
REPUGNANT PRECEDENTS AND THE COURT OF HISTORY.
...reason to doubt that aliens, as a category, "are not as well qualified as citizens to engage in this business"). (308.) Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15,43 (1885). Since Murphy, the constitutionality of status-based disenfranchisement has been characterized as "most doubtful," rather than doub......
-
Why Two in One Flesh? the Western Case for Monogamy Over Polygamy
...Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890); Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). For context and case analysis, see Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygam......