Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-29
COUNT FORTH. RUMEL, JF.
The CanFassing Board Should Give
All Rumsl Votes To Him.
JUDGE zlNE'S LAW AND LOGIC.
He states Matters 50 Clearly a. 10
DiSpsl All Doubt.-The Ger
tincatr ISSncd.

.
that Chief Justice Zane, who heard
the case, would render a decision az
ten O'Clock this morning. aud al the
opening Of court the Judge prcnib,-
ly announced his Conclusions. He
said that The canvassing bond, who
were made defendants Ia this pro
oeeding, were required by law to
canvass the votes cast at the county
election on August :. for county
officers, and declare the result. It
appeared from the returns from Poll
/, First Precinct, salt Lake County,
that IL. Page received IS votes for
the office Of recorder ofthe county.
and that J. II. Ramel received 81
votes for the same office. 1t is fur
ther alleged that the Board OF Can
vassers have determined the fscttbat
these votes were 50 cast; also that
that in 3 other polls votes we're
cas-; FOR John II. Ramel, Jr., aud
the consequent discrepancy author
lied the b0arc to open snI examine
the returns, b ascertain whether
The votes were not actually cast for
Jonn II. Rumel, Jr. This siterna-
tive writ Of mandate reuuiFes the
canvasseus TO count the votes in that
poll for J. II. Rumel, or 10 show
cause why they DO not DO 20. The
law requires tke! the board shall
examine the returns from an the
polls Of the county. AMI from those
returns state the result. Ia order d. I
DO that il Is Necessary 70 ascertain
the persons for whom the votes p-eru
cast. One Of thequestions lse!orc the Z
court Is whether the votes cast for !.
IA. Rumel in the fiust poll, first NE
cincL aud in tive uihef polling F.
places ia the county, shall he cunt F.
ell for J. II. Rumel, and the votes .
cast IN thirty-eight other polls FOR f.
}. II. RImei, or John II. Rumel. I
Jr. II the court i Of the opinion .
usat the votes cast IN the first
poll Finst precinct, aud IN the other
two polls shoald BE regarded by the
board as having been cast for John F.
II. Rumel. Jr., then the perempt1ry
writ would he denied.
The courts and law writer's differ .
as % the rules governing cauvasSinu .
boards CT this character, ia deter
mining who are the persons voted .
Tor, IN cases where the word '.JE-'
Il used at some polls and omitted ia .
Others, and where the Initials only .
are used in some polls ami the full .
names II others The weight of au.
thOTity and the better rule. I ii,ink.
Is that the beard has the tight 10
take into confederation everything
that appears on the face Of The re-
t1rns, by which 20 determine the
result. That is the most re8sonable
rule. They may also take into a.
coant matters OF public n0tosiuty,
as courts are required 10 DO. That
being -, the bJIrl hai a right %
take into consideration the fact that
ballots were cast al forty one polls.
and that At thiriy-eight 0f then, all
the votes for RUINED were cast for
John H. Rumel, jr., or J. II. Ru-
mel, IT., and that in three only the
returns showed they were for John
H. Rumel or J. II. RumeI. with tine
term 'HJr." omitted. They had the
right TO take into consideration tine
fact that at the First precinct.
all the voters whose nam
with the letter 4.
aud from that down % l..
voted at the frst poll, ami those
whose names commenced with let
ter NJ, AMI all below. % Il, We're
required 70 vote n the second plu
Of the precinct.
That being the case, these two
facts afford som inference 20 \ rec
sonable man that all the votes 1t
the various polls, both for J. u. I
Rumel aud J. II. RUnlel, Jr.. were
intended for the same man. That
those at the first poll. Fist Precinct.
We're for J. II. Runsel, Sen. and
that the voters az thirty ight other
polls intended 10 cast their votes for
John 4. Rumel, Jr., would be q
very unreasonable position 10 as
sumo, in view OF the facts before the
board. That all the men Whose
names commenced with ceTtlin
letters intended 70 vote ~
Rumel, Sen, and ali below
the letter NJ for Rumel. Jr.. Is not
a reasonable Presumption. That j.
not the way in which human
acts. Men do not di-
vide their preferences ia that way.
X would be unreasonable 10 assume
that the voters did this, and voted
for different men Of the same name.
IL Is the view OF the court. and
think il the weight Of authOsities-
for under our statute il Is required
DEly that the name OF the man
voted for,and the office for which he
Is intended, be designated on the
ballot without any further descrip-
.iOn-that the more reasonable
rule is that the cauvdssers should
take notice Of who the candidates
are that are nominated by political
parties, when the existence Of such
parties and the nominations made
are matters Of public nOtoTiety.
When the candidates have done all
that the law requires n them. II the
Board cannot take note Of vino the
are. il would Toe imp3s-
sible to apply the vote 70 proper i'll
tividuals. If the Board may take
notice OF the fact OF vino the candi-
dates are, they may draw all reason
able inferences from that fact, and
those differences are drawn from the A..
reasonable actions Of men.
IL i matter OF common public
that there are POLITICAL
parties who put forth candidates
and that the people decide them
selves with respect 10 these political
Iarties,and do not fritIer away their
strength 10y voting for two men Of
the same name. IL the word ''Sen."
had been used at poll one, il would
have been different. But orr a
4 description WAS omitted, but was
added at 3 Others The candidate
may have been described as a dark
Or light man, tall or a short man,
all Of which might be used 10 Dis
tinguish the man. But the name
John II. Rumel Describes John
H. RUmel or J. II. Rumel,
and here is a general description
given. The clnvassing board can
lake into consideration the further
fact that J. H. Rumel, jr., was
publicly knOEn 10 be a candidate.
The court is Of the opinion that the
board can take into con-
sideratiOn these facts, ami that ia ,
polls cir" was added ,
10 Mr.. Rlmel's name, and in three
il was not. They also hal right 4
10 take into consideration the fur
her fact that the returns at the first
poll. First Precinct, were for J. h
RumeI, without "Jrs" ami at
the second poll in the same
precinct for J. II. Rumel with
Inc or" and the fact that
]. II. Rumel, Jr., was lIhlicly
known TO be a candidate for record-
sr. With these facts before them,
any fair-mindedaud reasonable man
would say that the same man va
intended where the name OF ) II.
7, =, II ,,-,. r,u.-H whether the - r. i