The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-04-19
DECIDED At LAST.
The Opinion in the Ferguson.
Allen Case.
MINER ON ELECTION FRAUDS,
Ihe hotten Bingham Poll and the Reiectad
votes at South Cottonwood Not
Sufficient to Gust Allen.

AC ene former session of the suprem
1ourC' IL was announced that the case q
erg0son vs.. Allen, involving the title q
euo oiiice OF county clerk, was decided il
-aFor oi the defendant and that the opinion
would be handed down later. Tho opinion
was delivered by Judge Miner Yesterday
and is as follows:
lug plalntlf, Fergus Ferguson, and the
uelehoant, Clarence Z. Allen. were each
aospectvely candidates for the Office Of
T Eun9s clerk OF the county of Salt Lake
;e1,drdIeoFy OF Utah, at the August election
to'o ana Tue only candidates therefor.
az the canvas OF the votes by the county
osnVassers Of the precinct returns ths,
oouy adludged that defendant Allen had
ao9ereo majority of fifteen votes: the
ooio PidlntlH having received $40 votes
auu Tue defendant having received 3755
EoUes' and a certificate of election was ac,
- gwen to the defendant Allen.
WY IIo, Is now In possession Of the Office.
1ne piaintlff, within the time required
~ raw, nled his notice of contest, and now
claims that there are two distinct error .so w
mat computation, that is:
lin the Bingham precinct. three no,l-
my Places We're provided by the Utah com
liselon, OUT no division was had of tho
registration hst-the whole repistration
NaS IeIt with the judges of each poll: that
po4i NO. 3 IN such precinct was estabIisheS
ny Tue canon, in the mountains. for the nc
location OF the voters al the Rroolr-
lyn NINE AT this poll II ballots were caet.
F ao Uule electlon-59 for the contestee and 3
LOT tne contestant. Thirteen of the 20 voteS
cast Tor Contestee Allen were proved to be
cast 1raudulently, by persons not entitled
W Vote, ana were rejected by the trial
cinct 26. '0'o ~ ILLS pre-
III Is now claimed by the contestant that
cue court erred in not rejecting the entira
Note polled at this precinct, for the reason
snat the whole of the poll was proven
- 1luuulent, and 10 legal votes were shown
10 nave been cast. Il
The contestant also claims 4bo+ h..
utled TO have counted in his favor tiftean
votes IN the South Cottonwood nrecinct
NnIcn were not returned by the Judges of
sIecItoh, ana claims that the facts concern
ing these ntteen voters are that Il ftaan la,,o1
EoUers, whose names appeared unon the
registration list, who were entitled IN vote
we're Wrongfuly stricken from the reris'
tIdtloh list by the judges of election them
sSeLNeS, Sc as TO prevent their vote. That
v-.e ediu uIIeen voters, however, tried to
vote, SO lar as they were able To do so and
mat each of them rendered a ballot To-
gether with an affidavit sworn tn in 6na
FORM oy eacn OF said persons Offering IN
we, containing the oath required by the
SCI OF congress OF March Bird 1897 lSoIrr1
as TIE Edmunds-Tucker law. and that tho
Judges refused to put their ballots into The
ooA. Each of the voters caused said hal
loOS 10 De preserved, ana his name written
" .t ~ iuentlned and brought into court
- Uiiae Ihe Dallot was cast by each of the
- tLa soUefs SO Tar as II was in the power
u Inc voter to cast it, Each of these votec /
contained the name of the contestant
counting these fifteen votes he wouId baTa
majority over the contesteee of eight
rotes. u eight
CONTESTANT claims-F'irst that the coprt
erred IN not throwing out the entire boJ1ot
u 5he hrst poll of the Bingham precinct
.no oe6uctng all the thirty-nine votes |
rom Alien S majority, for the reason thar
ne WhoIe sald pole was proven to be fraud |
llent, and no legal votes were shown ~
lave been cast. W
Second-The court erred in NOT aIIoryirc,
ne n teen votes which it determined IN |
ave oeen Wrongfully and illegally Kent
rom the ballot box in South CottHnvlo65
precinct, and found to have been hv f6a
-otes rendered for Fergus Ferguson to he |
oGnted for him. W De
"Ihe evidence upon which this case was
: ~ -! Uile COURT DeI0W IS not brought he |
gre tnis court by the record, aud the only
ues GIoh before thlS court on the recor1 is
Vhether Or not the findings of fact NV tho
over court, justify the conclusions and
augment OF the court below, or whether
tner and different conclusions of IoU
mould nave been reached upon the facts "a
ound. Upon these points the court haIo1y
ound, among others, the following facts.
o-ihat at said poll No 3, in Bingham
reclnct, SAID thirteen ballots were cast NV
etsons VINO were not qualified electors of
anu precihct, out VINO fraudulently per
onated the names of persons whose noy9a,
ppeared upon the registration Iiet ,rbo
we're not present TO vote. That each of
ald thirteen ballots were cast. counted ord
eGurneo Tor the incumbent. contested
Alen, Tor said office Of county clerk
S-1haI IN the precinct of South Cotton
1000, IN said county, fifteen different ner-
Ons presented themselves at the noIIino
lace ON the day of election, and ciaimaSS
ne rlght 10 vote, and each rendered the
luges ol electlon ballot for contestant
nd with said ballot rendered an affIda--;t'
worn to before justice of the peace hT
he persons so Offering to vote. which as
aVlt contained the oath required nv tho
law, and the haIIot of
ach SAID persons was refused nv tho
ioges Tor the reason that the mama of
one OF said persons was upon the registry
said precinct
That the names of each of the ff+aar :
easons had prior to the said day of alec
on Deen upon the registration list of said !
-ecInct' 1uG eacn OF said names had been 2
the Judges Of election stricken frorr ,
nd list before the opening of the noIIs IN =
'cordance with the directions in writino, :
ON the deputy registration officer of said /
'eclncL That the right of each oF col !
-teen persons to vote at said election had / +
zen OBJECTED to by qualified voter. in q
rltIng before said deputy registrar and . y
caring had been had upon each of said :
,rSons before SAID deputy registrar. and g
10 deputy registrar had determined ON o
On nearing mat the names of each of said a
rsons should be stricken from the roeris
alton list of said precinct, which said 5e- f
was erroneous and illegaI-tha 6
Id h1teen persons being qualified voters c
ouu was duly certified TO said judges and Y
vote OF each OF said persons was re-
Sed by said judges of election for the G
ason that the name Of each had been 60 | o
rlcken from the registration list" e
Upon the foregoing facts, as found the I,
IA court FOUND therefrom the following O
nclusions of law: y
That to the majority of fifteen for the h
as shown upon the face of tbe ;.
nVass and return, there should be added
votes on account of the matters set ont II
the fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of n
foregoing findings of facts, ana that g,
I'M the majority for the incumbent as a
is increased, should be deducted fourteen h
ties, on account of the matters stated in RI
third and eighth paragraphs of said a,
dlngs, leaving the incumbent clear ma W
lty of seven votes out of all the legal 81
tes cast for said office at said election NJ
lat the ballots offered TO be cast for con- h,
tant ID South Cottonwood precinct as re-
red to IN the ninth paragraph of the said 81
dlngs OF fact, and which were rejected hC
tue Judges and were not in fact cast CO
mot be counted, nor can any of them be re