The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-09-30
A Full Synopsis of the Arguments

. we're Judges Mcbride, sutherlan,
/. and Rosborough; on the part of Gen
9 Burton. Judges Snow and Hardness
} and Msssrs. a. Miner, ]. L. Raw
. Inns, lara Snow and +. s. Richards
Il was not until z. 80 that the Judge
, entered the room. Upon taking tht
bench JudgeHuntsr ssked counsel hoV
long the arguments would take. The
defendant asked for two hours. ant
said they would have two speakers
The plaintiff announced that they
also had two speakers. The cour
said this would require four hours
which could not be given. The mat.
ter had to be decided tonight, 81
Judge Emerson had to leave in the
morning, and be also had his court
to open. He said each side would
be given one hour.
The discussion then commenced
with the introduction OF the following
demurrer:
DEMURRER.
In the Supreme Court of the Territory
of Utah.
George R. Maxwell, plaintiff, Us. r. T.
Burton, defendant.
In relation for mandamus comes now
r. T. Burton and demurs TO the writ and
petition for the writ herein, and assigns
as cause:
First- This court has no Jurisdiction of
tie subject of this action.
Second-Neither the petition nor writ
herein state facts sufficient to constitute
cause Of action.
ZERUBBABEL SNOW,
! RICHARDS u WILLIAMS,
A. MINER.
j. l.. RAWLINs,
BENNETT i HARKNEss.
ZERA Snow,
Attorneys for Registrar.
NIB. RAWLINs' ARGUMENT.
]. L. Rawlins began Tor she defense.
The grounds Of the demurrer are
stated. This court has no power to
entertain the writ in that /. is an
exercise of original jurisdiction. This
court has the right OF original juris-
diction only in case OF ha6eas corpus,
and il can issue a writ of msndamus
only in aid of It's appellate jurisdic-
ton. The character OF the jurlsdic.
lion is purely appellate; and l may
sake it as settled that this court has
DO original jurisdiction save in the
Gaze mentioned. He called at
tention to the statute on the
subject, and cited rulings in support
of bis position. Then comes the
question as to whether the issuing Of
this writ is an exercise of original
Jurisdiction. Judge Mcbride here
said sthey were wiling to admit that
the issuing Of the writ Was the ex-
ercise OF original jHrisdiction.) Mr..
RaWlins then referred 10 decision OF
the Supreme Court in June, 1879. in
the case OF Geo. @. Cannon and others
on the writ OF cert,ordri. In this case
the court decided that it had power
to issue the writ, because it was
ESSENTIALLY a writ OF review and coz
eerned matter then pending in an
inferior court, over which the Supreme
Court bad general sup rvisory power;
that the writ in that case did not
originate a proceeding, but merely
review one which YVES then pend
ing, and that this jurisdiction was
analogous TO that exercised by the
lSupreme Court OF the United States.
Admitting the right Of this court to
exercise original jurisdiction, sthe
question then arose. bad it the right
TO do SO 10 this case, and there ap-
pears a multitude OF objections. The
registrar wcs ordered TO strike the
names of persons from the registry
list, not because they are not citizens
or have not taken the oath, bat be-
cause they are females. Here he
read from the statutes showing the
registrar should visit every dwelling
and every person. If be took a certain
r oath, tnereupon tho registrar should
place the name OF the persor
taking the oath upon the county
, registration lists. There is no pro
, vision permitting this officer to re
iect the name OF a person who take
the preferred cath. His duties srt
. purely mInisterisl. Unless he does
= register or If be uses his Own discretion
: be is liable to prosecution. VIVA
, authority has be to strike thes
names of in the performance of hi
dutie.? The speaker read from tn
az showing that only at the reques
of the voter himself could tue nam
A be erased. After the oath is taken
the officer has no right whatever I
refuse 10 register the name. On hi
Z position be quoted many authorities
o The elective machinery has appointe
d an officer whose power it Is to e.
$ punge from the lists the name OF an
II person who is not 8 legal voter. show
lie ing its proceEs 10 be through Ii
re county clerk and Justice of the peac
le also that q person may be challenge
p. before the judges of election. If thel
: be a valid objection TO person
vote, be may be challenged befo
the Justice of the peace or before Il
Judges OF election on the day OF ele
e ten. Thus 3 person thinking
at will be wropged by the deposit of
- vote, has adequate remedy in q
law as provided. Had discr
tionsIy powers been conferr
Is upon the registrar, he would 81
10 have judicial power; and j! he 81
8 these powers, the court could on
T. issue an order compelling him
. make decision; but no court wou
attempt to state what thst decisl
;, must be, or compel him to strike
! the names. 1t could only CONF
Ia him 10 mske q decision of some kir
re- This position was supported by 90
eftl Gus authorities. In the event Il
h the registrar should exercise this 6
i'd thority and did strike of any nan
mt or refused to accept any. be would
ne hsld civilly and criminslly liable.
prsl could be harassed by civil action
,ey by q penal prosecution should he
ed so.ss The rule is that the cou
u sill. Lot grant writ where it pla
ov an officer liable to 8 civil prosecute
do and certainly it will not when
L. l.