The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-08-24

Il
tended for John H. Rumel, jr., is ques
ton of fact, and is not such D one as this
board has any power to enter upon the in
vestigation Of.
MIR. Cooley, in his work on Constitutional
Law, first ed. 622, in discussing the power
of canyassing boards says: 1.-The action of
such boards is to be carefully confined to an
examination of the papers before them, and
to a determination CT the result therefrom,
in the light of such facts of public notoriety
connected with the election as every one
takes notice of, and which may enable
them to apply such ballots as are in any re
spect imperfe ct 70 the proper candidates or
officers for which they are intended, pro-
vided the intent is sufficiently Indicated by
the ballot in connection with sucn facts, so
that extraneous evidence is not necessary
for this purpose 1t will be seen that the
author carefully confines tue action of the
board to its Interpretation OF the returns to
such facts as are of public notoriety, that
can be taken notice OF by everybody: and
they can in no event take evidence of an
extraneous character for the purpose of ar
irving at the intent of the voter, so as to
apply the ballot to the return.
But here, again, l am of the opinion that
this is such discrepancy upon these re
turns as requires this board to open the
ballot box and examine the ballots cast at
the precincts where these Irregularities ap-
pear; and if it shall appear from an lnspec-
tion of the ballots that they were cast for
John H. Rumel, jr., then it will be the duty
of this board in canvassing the returns to
co unit such votes for John H. Rumel, ir.
But If it should appear that some ballots
are for John H. Rumel, while others are
for John H. Rumel, jr., this raises ques-
ton of fact, which is: who the voter in
tended to vote for, whether for John H.
Rumel, jr., or for John H. Rumel. The
presumption of law is that if there were
nothing to designate which one, the elder
Rnmel is intended. But If, as matter of
fact. the voters did intend to vote for John
II. Rumel, jr., although they may have de-
posted their ballots for John H. RCmel,
that Is question which can be settled as
between the parties by the district court
upon proper proceedings instituted for that
purpose. But. in my opinion, it is ques-
ton upon which this board cannot enter !;
but that they will have done their duty
simply by certifying the number of votes
cast for John H. Rumel, and also the num-
| Der OF votes cast for John H. Rumel, jr.,
and the number Of votes cast for Henry
Page.
| The next question in the regular order to
which l come, is as to the question raised
upon the returns from Box Elder precinct,
Box Elder county.
We have been told that the Utah COM
mission appointed set OF judges who,
under such appointment, proceeded to
open and hold an election according to law
and we have been told, at the same time,
that after their appointment, and before
they had performed the duties imposed
upon them, another set were appointed by
the Utah commission for reasons salts
tory to the commission, and that they met
and opened and held an election according
to law in said precinct; and there has been
| fN,nx l~<l% xx1n-
| before this board, two sets OF returns from
Box Elder precinct, both of which, so far
as they appear upon their face, are per
fectly regular.
| OF course, this board, sitting as a board
of canvassers, are necessarily compelled, in
each and every instance, as a primal QueS
ton, to settle what are the returns that
they are called upon to canvass. In the
very nature OF things, the power to decide
upon the validity and legality Of the re
turns,t so far as to decide who were the
judges OF election, who were authorized by
law to hold said election, devolved upon this
board; and this decision in every instance
must be made before any canvass car
commence This board, sitting here under
the authority of law, is bound to take no
tice Of the powers OF the Utah commission
to appoint the officers of election, for it i:
one specially conferred by act of Congress
They are likewise bound to take notice oil
the officers, so appointed by the commits
sion. 1t can hardly be disputed that the
power to appoint, where nothing to the
contrary is said in the law comforting the
power, must necessarily carry with it the
power to remove, or re appoint or to ap
point others and different persons In thi
case the Utah commission have seen prope
to exercise the power vested in them to re
woke their appointment, and to make an
| nt hnr rha ~ la
appointment, made by them, OF election
officers for Box Elder precinct, wer
Lucius A. Snow, Brigham Wright an,
Alfonzo H. Snow These officers hav
certified to the Utah commission a retur
of their conduct in holding the the election
as Judges of Box Elder precinct
and the returns has been place
upon its face it may be said i
is fair and legal without any discrepanc
or irregularity. And in my opinion ther
! is nothing for this board to do but to can
vass that as legal return from such pre-
cinct, and to count the vote accordingly
Whether the Utah commission have col
!, reatly performed their duty, or whether tn
election in said precinct was IRREGULAR
held, or whether persons voted who had n
right to vote, are all questions with whic
this board has naught to do; and it only re
>
: the result certified here by the proper off
: GERS, and to count it accordingly.
! 1t is argued that both of these return
: are illegal and ought to be thrown out.
: In the first place, to accept such resul
: as that would be, in my opinion
q under the authorities which l hav
i consulted to entirely void tie ele,
!. ton in that county, and leav
!. the people without having accomplishe
Z | on l,x,fh air al IN,
the result of this would be TO put tn
> county government in state of demoral
. cation If not anarchy-a result which, b
4 all means, in every instance, must /
q avoided if it can be done by any legal il
q tendment.
Q So far as the contest from Weber count
is concerned, it Is, in substance, that VOTE
6 cast for one candidate were counted *
. another. There is no complaint here tn,
q the returns upon their face are irreglla
a or that there is any discrepancy the rel
but IL is alleged that the ballot box wi
!, show that votes were cast for MIR. Ham,
a for county recorder which were as Gla
4 ter of fact, counted for MIR. Tyler for I'll
4 same flee.
J. 1t may be subject for regret that, if IL
o facts be as alleged, this board has not tt
J. power conferred upon 1t to send for ii
7, ballot box and recount such votes; but
IS have conclus1vely shown that in no eve
- can they send Tor the ballot box, unle
IS there appear upon the face of the returl
ID such discrepancies or Irregularities as w
IS prevent the ineligible canvass of the r
s. turns. and since it is not alleged that ar
irregularity or discrepancy appears upe
1t the face Of the returns, the board simp
IT does its duty by canvassing tie returns
% made.
is If the contention of Mr.. Hamer be tru
r a great wrong has been done to him, al
e the judges Of election are little less tn,
d criminals, and, fortunately for the good G
) der and the well-being of society, our Ia,