The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-02-11

anu oruef prevailed. throughout the Gay
everything about the polls was conducted
in an orderly manner, and not a single ac
OF violence occurred.
The rulings of the judges created consid-
cradle comment, the two officials in the
different polls making rulings at variance
with each other.
Candidate-Registrar Morris started out
| Ialr enough, but as the day advanced and
he warmed up to the subject, his various
suggestions and twistings of the registra
ton list caused considerable unfavorable
comment. What was law at one poll was
not at the other, and there was evidently a
niger in the fence. Where an error had
been made in the registration list it was
rectlfied in some instances, while at others
the judges claimed that they were moi
registration officers.
AT 10 O'Clock 357 ballots had been cast
three-fourths of which were for honest
government and the Peoples party. Al
this time brass band came along and en-
llvened the polls with some fine music
BY II o'clock 621 votes were in the boxes
474 OF whom were for the Peoples candi
mates and 147 for the Liberals. The
weather by this time having cleared off, an
increased interest was taken in the cleo.
ton and an orderly crowd of considerable
dimensions had congregated
During the day John Joseph WIGHT came
up to cast his ballot, when it was discov-
cred that his name was stricken off the
registration list. The registrar held that
he had gone to California, hence was dis
qualified. The applicant held that such
was not the case, but the Judge was mex
orable until it was discovered that the
wrong name was scratched, the absentee
being John L., the son. MIR. j. J. WIGHT
then cast his ballot
| w. w. Bywater was challenged for not
being citizen. He stated that he came to
this country when but one year old, and
that his father had been naturalized. He
could not produce the papers, however.
and his name was stricken off the list.
Emil Huber's name was stricken off the
| list on the plea that he was not citizen
He stated that he came to this country
when quite young, and thought that
because his stepfather, to whom he had
been legally adopted, had obtained his
papers he would be considered a citizen.
The judges thought otherwise, and refused
his ballot
Edmund H. L. Cheminent was not al
lowed by the judges to cast his ballot. who
| claimed that he was not citizen. He
made application to the Utah commi ssion,
who overruled the objection, and he went
back and voted
John Joshua Armstrong was the next
victim. He claimed to be citizen under
his fathers papers He made an affidavit
to this effect, but was not allowed to
vote until he had paid visit to the com
mission, who decided in his favor.
Charles j. Mitchell's name did not ap-
pear on the registration list. He made an
affidavit and bee line for the com
missioners' office, where it appeared that
his name had been stricken out through an
error. He voted.
Peter Stevens was the next candidate for
challenge. The judges claimed he had
been convicted of incest, which disqualified
him as voter. On the matter being re-
ferred to Colonel Kaighn, he sustained the
judges objection, and Peter did not vote.
Ernest Giles was challenged because he
had not been resident of the city six
months prior to registering. A lively dis
cussion ensued, and he was informed he
would be liable to Indictment for perjury.
Attorney William Condor, who assisted
Colonel kalghn as legal advisor, gave it az
his opinion that Giles could not be in
dlcted for perjury, and Said 'In the regis
tration oath there can be no perjury in
swearing falsely that the affiant had been
here six months prior to registration. if on
election day he has been here six months,
because under the most recent interpreta-
ton six months residence here on election
day is all that the Edmunds- Tucker bin
contemplates. The registration oaths were
improperly formulated, and as the state
ment therein Though false) that affiant
had been here six months was not required
by law, no perjury can be predicated under
the federal statutes which govern in this
case, because such statement would be
lmmaterial. Under Commissioner Sharks
certain additional sworn statements were
required in coal land claim applications.
and indictments against parties falsely and
Wlifully swearing to those additional state
ments were quashed, On the ground that
the statements were not by law required to
be made, and We're improperly Inserted
After this legal opinion, Mr. Giles de-
posted his ballot.
A Mr.. Kirkwood presented his ballot. but
the judges refused to accept the same The
point raised was that he was a resident of
Provo. The question was asked, s'Where
is your homer" whereupon he promptly re-
piled, SAT Provo" 1t seems he understood
the query to be as to where his former home
had been. Upon matters being explained
it was found that he came here from Provo.
but had lived in Salt Lake and been en-
ployed here a sufficient length of time to
make him qualified voter. The objection
was, however, overruled after consider
able of squabble, it being proven that he
was resident of this city.
A man by the name of Green came next.
but was informed that his name was not on
the list. He stated that he had been
legal voter and was in every way qualified.
but could get no satisfactory answer from
the judges, and was told that he would have
to apply to the Utah commission to have
his name restored. Whether he voted
was not ascertained.
William E. Jones and Ira Egan were both
off the registration list. 1t appears they
both voted at the August election, but had
neglected to ascertain if their names were
on the last list. Mr.. Jones stated he had
been told his name was there, and Mr..
Egan stated he had been unable to come to