Weekly Phoenix herald. [volume] (Phoenix, Maricopa County, Ariz. Territory [Ariz.]) 1882-1896, 1883-01-26


the case of kirkland vs.. Osborn.
The facts are that six votes were cast
at Tempe whose names were not on
the Great Register, viz: Manuel Con-
zales, Nabor Gonzales, John Z. Lar
sen. George w. Nichols, Gabriel
Cosner and e. T. Hayden. The de-
PENDANT was allowed to introduce,
by the rulings of Judge Pinney, the
evidence of the three hrst as having
vo,ed for Kirkland, without having
fist gwen three days notice. Next
day when the contestant sought to
Introduce the evidence of Mr.. Cos
ner and Mr.. Nichols, who were per-
rnitted to oppose that they had voted
for Kirklond (Mr. Hayden being alb
scnO, the Court gave no weight to
their testimony. because three days
notes had not been giuen. This in
the face of the California decision.
and in contravention one of the
first rules of law, which accepts the
Interpretation placed upon any act
by the courts of the state in which il
originated. The six men who voted
at Tempe were not on the Great Reg
lister through an oversight of the
registering officer, ]. T. Priest, upo n
whose affidavit they voted on the
day of election, and who so dcposed
during the course of the trial. A
question may exist as to their right
to vote, but it is spids Mt that while
three voted for Kirkland, two, and
perhaps three (the third one not be-
ing brought into court, because of
absence from the county, voted for
Osborn. Judge Pianey in his opin-
ion, expressed an individual belief
that these men were legally enti-
tied to vote. being qualified elcc-
tors, having compile with all the
necessary requirements to entitle
themselves to the exercise of Euf-
frage, but stated that he had con-
suited au'eminent ex-Judge of Cali
fornia, who stated it as his opinion
that q man whose name was not on
the Great Register could not be al
lowed to vote, and he would so de-
eide against his own convictions.
First, he runs headlong against a
judicial decision of the highest
court of California, knocking it all
to smash, and then, as a compro-
mise, turns right around and accepts
the opinion Of a private citizen OF
that stats as conclusive. But in both
cases the slug strikes Kirkland
Again he asserted that there are
points of law and authorities to con.
suit, raised in the question that
would take him thirty days to de-
eide.
In rendering his final decision on
Monday morning, the Judge stated
that he did not feel satisfied in hi.
| own mind, and that ii he found, upon
consulting authorities, that he was
wrong, he would always feel very
sorry. Sympathy is q good thing,
and, if properly applied, will go
a long way; but how, in the name OF
| justice, is it going to right a wrong
If Kirkland is deprived OF his office
by an unjust decision. how Is he go.
ing to get it back againt We pre-
sumo he will grasp to his bosom the
tender hearted Judge, whose tears
will give him surcease from the in.
iuries that have been wrought in an
i'll considered and equivocal opinion.
This is faithful account of the
trial, its origin, evidence, rulings,
end decision, truthful in every par
ticular, and 1 write it that everyone
may be able to understand the ones
ton thoroughly and then to draw
his own conclusions. JUSTICE.