The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-24
PAGE, RUMEL AND THE BOARD.

PAGE RUMEL AND THE BOARD.
1t was COKE or LrTTLEToN or some other
great man of Jurisprudence who said that
reason is the basis OF the law This may be
so, but it is oftentimes little difficult to
dig down through the everything precedents
that have accumulated over and al ound that
basis to ascertain if, in fact, it be there
The opinion Of Judge JUDD, the lawyer
OF the canvassing board, as pub
lished in our issue this morning,
may be good law, which. however, we
are not prepared to admit without
further persuasion, but it is certainly not
good logic. 1t may voice the doctrine of
the courts, but it does rot agree with the
suggestions Of reason. Either the law, to
use current expression, is off its base or
Judge JUDD is; the latter in his devotion
to his profession will pardon US if we adopt
the view that the man and not the science
is at fault; that the complaint is local not
widespread, transient not chronic.
The Judge voted yes on the proposition
that 81. H. RUMEL, JR.. is not j. H. RuMEL
and that H. PAGE and HENRY PAGE is the
same person" If this be logic, then there
is some malformation in our brain thatpr
vents our recognizing it as such. II it be
good law, then is reason certainly not the
basis of the law
1t is perfectly clear to the minds of the
majority of the board that Il. PAGE means
only HENRY PAGE; it does not seem to have
occurred to them that II. might stand for
HIRAM or HUBERT or HORACE or HAROLD
or HOWARD or HANS or HAMILTON or any
one of scores of other names that might be
suggested; no, the initial can represent but
one name and that is HENRY.
On the other hand the mere possibility
that John H. RUMEL" might possibly
mean JOHN H. RUMEL, SEN, is an ambig-
Iity so incomprehensible, an irregularity
so vital, that the courts must be sought to
determine the difficulty. How is that for
logic!
If the ambiguity be hundred fold, the
board brush it aside without hesitation
if it be twofold, it presents an in
superable obstacle to them; if it be
question which of score of men the
votes were intended for, an off. hand de-
cision settles it; out of it was a question
which of two men was voted for, the board
is without jurisdiction.
Shades of COKE and LITTLEToN If this
be law, how changed must its functions
have become since the day you wrote that
reason is its basis!
Now we believe that the board did Just
right in holding that "H PAGE and
HENRY PAGE is the same person. We are
of the opinion that in res diving ambiguity
themselves, they exercised proper au
thority.
Judge COOLEY has laid down the law in
the quotations used by Judge JUDD. In
discussing the power of canvassing boards
he says, in his work on Constitutional Law
The action of such boards is to be carefully
confined to an examination OF the papers before
them, ana to determination of the rasul,
therefrom, in the light of such facts of public
notoriety connected with the elect.C as every
one takes notice of, and which may enable then
to apply such ballots as are in any respect i'm
perfect to the proper candidates or officers fol
which they are intended, provided the intent i
sufficiently indicated by the ballot in connection
with such facts, so that eXtraneous evidence j,
moi necessary for this purpose.
Strictly in conformity with the law a.
thus stated, the board in the light of suct
facts of public notoriety connected with The
election as everyone takes notice of de
cided that H. PAGE meant HENRY PAGI
and so canvassed the returns. But havins
done that much and when confronted will
the ambiguity that perhaps RUMEL NIGH
mean RUMEL, ST., the board suddenly
We ered over to Judge JUDn's opin-
ion that courts of law alone car
take cognizance of irregularitie,
not explained on the face of the returns
and refusing in this instance to view tn,
returns sin the lightof such facts of publ,
notoriety conn ,ted with the election al
every one takes notice OF" held that Rune
and Rumel, ir., are different persons.
! Some of these facts of public notoliet,
were called to the boards attention w
understand; that Rumel, SEN, is nota voter
that Rumel, jr., was a candidat
and his father was not; that tn
returns from one of the poll
Of the First precinnt of this city showe
regularly that the votes were for Rumel
jr., while at the other poll, where simila
ballots were used, the returns carelessl
gave the name as Eumel. The action O
TIE board appears to US to have been incon
sistent.
Looking at the controversy for mo
ment in the light of common sense, with al
reflnements of law and subtletes of lc%a
lore aside, let US act. For whom wer
the votes for John II. Rumel intendeds
No one doubts that they were intende
for JOHN H. RUMEL, ir., the only candidat
of similar name on the ticket. Why nc
then give them to him, why not cert;f
him as elected, permit him to be commits
stoned to the Office, and compel HENRI
PAGE to contest if he wishes too The latte
would lose none of ehis rights, and, coul
he show that the law entitled him to tn
Office, he would get it. What on tn
other hand, will be the proba bl
esult of this decisions HENRY PAGE, whol
Ino one believes to have been elected to III
Office of county recorder, will be certiSe