The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-02
wHo IS REsPoNsIRnEs

"a prominent Democrat Is reported
10 nave SAID" etc
That is the way our slanderous
neighbor endeavors to enierepresent
the Democrats of the Utah Conanais-
sion 1t is of the same kind of re-lie-
ability as the stories said to have been
told that paper by "a well known
citizen. "a trustworthy person. "a
respectable old lady and other IN
named, unidentified and altogether
mythical individuals.
The majority Of the Utah Commits
sion are once more attacked under the
cover of q pretended Democrat" be-
cause they have declined to do any
thing at all in the matter of the Third
precinct canvass Their action is dis
torted to mean something against the
Republican party. OF course. a little
reflection will show that the three
Democrats who it is admitted are
elected, have as much tc complain Of
as have the two Republicans whose
election is, TO say the least, very
doubtful Where the craftsmanship
comes IN under these circumstances
is q little difficult to see, &c ones
vision is not twisted by q partisan
strain.
II people viii take the trouble to
examine Judge Bartch'S two incon-
siStent decisions they viii hnd that.
taking them both for law the Utah
Commission cannot rishtfully issue
certificates on the face of the returns
If the naandarnus ruling IS right, nor
can they go into the ballot boxes TO
count the votes, if they comply with
the ruling as TO the writ Of prohibition
What follows logically and in law2
Why. that they can do nothing in the
matter And that Is what they are
doing.
But our neighbor with the tabled
prominent Democrat for a prompter,
Says;
But even the finsy pretext ad-
Tanced Was swept away by IN offer
made by Judge Bennett, representing
the petitioners in the prohibition cases.
20 dismiss the cases and leave che
Commission as free to act as if the
proceedings had never been instituted
This concession was proposed when it
became apparent that the Democrats
einct,
Is it possible that SO experienced a
lawyer as the gentleman named, after
helping to push the prohibition pro-
eeedinSs, and with full appreciation
Of their inconsistency-un he was
In an abnormal condition seriously
proposed what the Tribune asserts !?
An offer TO dismiss the prohibition
cases." so that they would be "as
though they had never been fnsti-
tuted." and that after the case had
been decided and the writ OF prohibit
ton issued? Astonishing!
We believe for this once the Tri-
hune is right as to the fact of the
offer. But what a position it puts the
Republican lawyer in, How could he
set aside a ruling of the court and
prevent the prohibition, when. the de-
cree was made? How did he obtain
the power to say what the court
would do? How did he know that
Judge Bartch would reverse himself
on the question? He might have been
thinking Of the Judges peculiar tao
tics on the. other prohibition case, an
nouncins, AThe writ is denied and
then afterwards declaring it was not
denied. But even if he did, by what
authority could he offer to "diS1niss
the case" after it had been decided
and the writ had been granted?
And that was a pretty proposition
to make, was it not? It implied the &C.
ceptance by the Commission Of returns
which the court had officially declared
had sufficient discrepancies to warrant
a recount Of the votes, on condition
that the court would go back on Itself
as to the writ OF prohibition 1t was an
attempt at a bargain and has a very
ugly look in the light Of legal and
honorable principles
But how about ''The Democrats in.
tending to disfranchise the Third Dre.
cinct? Is not that a fat falsehood. or
its face? When the maadamus was
refused, was it not clear to everybody
( with sense, to say nothing of lega
learning, that a writ Of prohibition
would put the Commission in the place
they now occupy as to the Third pre-
cinct2 We're not the attorneys warned
of what would be the consequences
Who pushed the prohibition proceed
ings?
They are responsible for the situa
ton. Ii that is disfranchfsement fo
the Third precinct it has been brough
about by the persistent folly anc
aninu5 Of the two Republican candf
dates and their attorneys. who woult
press for the writ. They obtained i
and then wished they hadn't, and nov
want 1t killed and buried out 0
sight.
Let the blame rest where it right
fully belongs. The fault is not tina
Of the majority of the Utah Commits
sion. Il rests with the Republican
and their attorneys They have mad
mess of it in their anxiety to parad
in court the miserable stuff, which i
utterly unreliable. in order to throw
more suspicion on persons agains
whom there is not a particle Of proc
Of guilt, They have made their be-
now let them lie on it and ''roarr'