The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-28
THEBOARD'S
Their Reply to the Recent Writ
of Mandate.
THEY WANT TO SEE THE BALLOTS.
and Smiths Special Denial-Rumel
VIII Intervene.

The attorneys for the cany assing board
yesterday filed the following answer to the
writ of mandamus issued by Judge Zane:
I'm the district court of the Third judi
cial district of Utah territory, county Of
Salt Lake
Henry Page, plaintiff, VS.. Elijah Sells,
]. W. Judd, Hugh Anderson, w. w. Ritter
and Elias A. Smith, defendants. Answer
of said defendants, constituting board of
canvassers.
Now comes the said defendants, the
board of canyassers at the county election
held August 4, 1899, and answer the alter
native writ of mandamus served in this
case; and the said board alleges:
THAT each Of the members of said board
was duly appointed and qualified as mem
bel of said board of canvassers of Salt Lake
county, and all the other counties Of
said territory; and, as such, they pro-
ceeded TO canvass the vote of the several
precincts of Salt Lake county, containing
forty one polls. That among other polls
was found by the said board the return
from poll No. ], of precinct No. l, Salt
Lake county, Utah, for said election "a
certified copy of which is annexed to the
answer in this case, and to which the board
III this return and answer refer, and make
1t part OF their answer That upon ex
aiming said return the board found it to
contain discrepancy between that return
and the other returns from the various pre-
cincts in Salt Lake county. From the
other returns it appeared that the vote for
county recorder was for Henry Page and
for John II. Rumel, jr., and not for Fl.
Page, nor for John II. Rumel, nor forJ. III.
Rumel That, in the opinion OF this board,
the variance between these different polls
and precincts stated constituted a discrep
ancy or irregularity affecting the result of
the election for the said Office, and
OF each of the said candidates. That the
number Of votes cast in the said poll of
precinct No. was such as to affect the
result Of the election of said candidate; and
therefore, in the judgement of said board of
canyaSsers, IL was voted to examine the
ballot boxes of said poll and said precinct,
and such other ballot boxes as the returns
show contain similar discrepancies. That
the returns of the other precincts referred
TO in the said alternative writ of mandamus
are annexed to and made a part of this
answer, and the same discrepancy exists in
East Mill Creek and Butler precincts.
That the board had not yet determined
whether they would or would not open the
ballot boxes of the said other two pre-
cincts.
This board further return that one of
their number, j. w. Judd. Incorporated his
views in an opinion filed with the said
board, which, by wav of answer in his be-
half, and in behalf of a majority of the
board, is added and appended to this return.
and made a part hereof. That the said
majority of the board based their action
upon the opinion so filed.
And the board further answering, re-
turn: That they had not completed the
canvass Of the said Salt Lake county at
the time of the service of said alternative
writ of mandamus; that they had not de-
termined the election of either John H.
Rumel, Jr-, or Of Henry Page, or of any
other person; and that VIVA. conclusion
this board of canvassers would, or will, ar
rive at, it was impossible to determine at
that date. That they were preparing at
that date to examine the said returns, and
the sald ballot box, and would have done
so had it not been for the service of the
said writ. That the said alternative writ
was served as an IN junction upon these
defendants, and has prevented the fulhl-
ment of their duties as officers of election.
and the completion uf their labor as a can
wasting board.
THAT as to the specific allegations in the
alternative writ of mandamus contained,
the majority OF the board return that they
have no knowledge, inform alton or belief
sufficient 10 enable them to answer as to
the fact whether ]. H. Rumel or John II.
Rumel and John H. Rumel, Jr, were in
fact different persons, each residing in said
county, and therefore deny the same. fer
the purposes OF this action; that the whole
knowledge on the said subject is derived
from the returns, which have been here.
tofore specifically set forth. and the legal
presumptions arising therefrom.
THAT the opinion of majority of the
10 ird is fully set forth In the opinion of J.
". Judd, hereto annexed; but as to the fact
as TO whether in truth they are different
persons, the board has no knowledge, in
formation or belief
THAT the only persons claiming to be
candidates, and to have been voted for, for
said office of county recorder, are the said
Henry Page and John H. Rumel, jr. and
the two members of the board, W. w. Ritter
rnd Elias A. Smith, answering for them.
selves, specially deny that the said John H
Rumel and John h Rumel, jr, are two
different persons, but allege that they are
one and the same, and that the said votes
cast at the said poll No. ] of precinct N, l,
and at all other polls in SAID county, were
for John 81. Rumel, ir., which were cast fol-
any Rumel whatsoever.
.'And the last named defendants alIepe
On information and belief, that the saio
ballots contained in the ballot box of poll
No. ], Precinct No |, and East Mill Creek
and Butler precincts, will be found, when
opened, to all have been cast for John H
Rumel, jr, and not for J. FL. Rumel at all
ssThat the majority of the said board deny
that the returns from the polling precincts
in said county, which are now before said
board. are duly cert led by the precinct
officers who conducted said election. and
deny that the return from poll No. l, pre-
clnct No. l, aforesaid, is certified as re
quired by law. That fun return from sale
precinct has never been furnished to this
board. as required by law.
.sThat the statute requires general sec
ton 2o5, special section IL, election law
compiled laws, vol. L, 3l3) That after tn,
canvass shall have been completed. the
judges Of election shall add up and deter
mine the number of votes cast for each per
son for the several Offices which resul
shall be placed on the list made bv th.
judges acting as clerks of election, and tn.
judges shall thereupon certify to the same
and shall forward all the lists, secured,
sealed, together with the ballot boxes. Il
the county clerk, by a qualified voter of th,
county etc.
THAT the said judges of election nav,
never returned such a list or such a certiH
cation, or any certifcation made by tn,
judges acting as clerks of election Tha
the only return made by the said Judges O.
election are those annexed to this answer
and made part thereof, for the purpose O.
showing what the return was.
ssThat as from the entire returns from
the whole Of the county of Salt Lake it ap
pears that only the initials were put in thi
return, poll No. 1, Of precinct No. /, Sal
Lake county and in East Mill Greek an,
Butler precinct, and in that only: and til,
board OF canvassers judged that it wa
such matter of discrepancy as justified
under the statute. the liberty of asking fo
the ballot boxes to be examined, to see TO
r. l~-r1-