The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-04-30

from doing what would have shown his
right 10 the seat, if his right alone rested
upon that charge. But the question has
been raised as TO the fact that this certif-
cate contained more than the law re-
CURED. Now, admitting that there is
more IN 1t than the law requires, l pro.
pose to shoU that that does not vitiate it
or lnYslidate It, and upon that point let
me call your attention for q moment 10
decisions which wilt cover this very point,
which have always been law, and are
Law to-day.
1 read section 1O4 OF McCrary on Flee
tions:
''The law is well settled that statute
CERTIFYING officers can only make Their
certificates evidence of ths facts which
the statute requires them to certify, and
when they undertake to 90 beyond this
and certify other facts thew ave unofficial
and no more evidence than the statement
of any unofficial person. (Switzler Us
Anderson. Bartlett, 374.J This rule, of
course, applies to election returns, and to
all certificates which sre by law required
to be made by officers of election or Of
registration, or by returning officers,
Tney can only certify to such facts as the
law requires them to certifg to. The csr-
tlhcste OF such an officer is not. however.
vlt'ated by the fact that it contains the
certihcation Of facts outside of those
which the officer has q right to certify.
1t 1t in fact cert,fes the proper facts it is
good, and the remainder Of the certificate
Is to be rejected as surplusage."
"The remainder of the certificate is to
be rejected asl surplussge." Can there
be any mistake ss TO the exact and tech
meal meaning of that language?
But Mr.. Speaker, there is not a man
here to-day who will take up that certifi.
cate, and after striking from it every
| Objectionable feature, would not admit
that Mr.. Campbell upon its face presented
an unqualifedly good certificate sustain
ing his claim to the seat and certificate
| such as the law requires. If there is
surplusage there. more than the law re-
qulres, you strike it out and the certificate
must stand as warrant entitliug him to
the sest. Now, in this view of the case,
why, l say, is Mr.. Campbell not entitled
pri1G JGcie to his seat? Nothing has
ever been shown that would substsntiste
the claim that the certificate had been OBJ .
tsIned by fraud; bat it stands there I'M
challenged as the honest legal act of the
only officer in this nation who could give
that certificate under the law, And what
is there to oppose it?
Mr.. Speaker, from the moment that
Mr.. Cannon succeeded in securing the
placing Of his name upon the rolls Of this
House by the action Of its democratic
clerk, illegally and in violation of the
law, l have no doubt that he considered
the contest at an end and that he would
be permitted to hold the seat which he
aud his eo-religionists have disgraced for
nearly twenty years.
But it did not happen to be the law.
and I say further that this pretended
certificate, this tabulsted statement
which they claim is evidence, was never
attempted TO be used by him, and if
offered it could not have been legally
passed upon by the committee on elections
for the reason that it was not taken as
evidence in the case submitted to them.
ITO be cO21tjnILed.)