The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-11-19

we'll and Campbell contests for the seat
of the Delegate from Utah, is entirely
different from the language of the law
in the case now in dispute.
Not. only that, the cases themselves
were essentially different in so many
respects, both as to the votes cast and
the powers of the canvassing authority,
to that now under consideration that
lit is a reflection upon the candidate
and upon the Utah Commission to
draw any parallel between them.
The Deseret News quotes long list
of extracts from articles published in
its columns at the time of those con-
tests, and appears to think they are
conclusive as to this. It's purpose in
bringing in personalities which have
no relevance to the question may be
as straight, square and honest as it
boasts of, but it's readers will judge of
that for themselves. It will, however,
have no bearing on the argument.
This question stands untouched by
those citations because it is unique
and under entirely different statutory
provisions.
Let us suppose that the person in
this case who has the greatest number
of votes was a polygamist, as defined
in the Edmunds act. and the contest
ant monogamist having received the
greatest number of votes cast for the
candidate who is eligible. Would not
the Commission be required under that
act to give the certificate to him? And
is not that the evident purpose of the
law viewed in all its parts? II this
contest had occurred under similar cir
cumstances to those suggested at the
first election after the passage of the
Edmunds act, is there any doubt that
the contesting candidate would have
received the certificate?
Now the position of a Probate Judge
appointed by the President of the
United States is exactly the same as to
ineligibility under the Organic Act,
as that of a polygamist under the Ed
nounds act. And the contestant in this
case is in exactly the same position as
that of the monogamist contestant.
What would have been the duty of the
Commission then, is the duty of the
Commission now
Should the Commission decide thai
no certificate should be issued, it is not
unlikely that the people of the Ninth
Council district would be without rep
resentation in the legislature. There
lis a dispute as to whether the Cover.
nor has authority, under the circum-
stances, to call a special election. He
would have, in case of a vacancy
caused by the death, resignation OF
other disability of a territorial officer
But it is claimed that the ineligible
candidate was not elected, that the
votes for him were thrown away, and
therefore he was not made a terrific
rial officer. and that such vacancy
as the law on special elections pro
vides for. does not exist. The Herald
does not advance this as its opinion
but merely as the view taken by some
lawyers on the point.
We consider the decision in this mat
ter rests solely with the Utah Commits
sion, whose certificate is made by Law
the only evidence of the right of tbs
person receiving it to sit in the as
sembly. They will certainly look a
the question from all reasonable
points, and their action under the Law
which created their Office will BIT
awaited with more than ordinary in
|