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

thorities bearing on the duties of can
vasSing boards, and conclude by say 4
ing that the lower court had acted cor
rectly in canvassing both the writs of
mandate and prohibition to issue and
that the judgment should be affirmed. /
Judge Henderson Closes.
Judge Henderson said. in closing for
the appellants, that the view held by
himself and Mr. Williams was that
writ of mandate did not lie in the case
and that when the right to the writ
Iof mandate was settled there was no
ground for writ of prohibition be
cause there could not be two certltl-
Gates of election issued for the same
office The writ of mandate, there
fore, covered the whole matter. In the
statement agreed on by both SIDES IN
this case it was admitted that the dis
crepancies were the result of fraudu-
ilent alterations, but how these discre-
pancies were credited did not affect the
Jaw in the case.
Counsel dissented from so little that
had been said by counsel on the other
side that it was hardly necessary Tor
him to make an argument. Judge Zane
had put forward propositions and ar
guments, which were effectuaEy an
sWered by the argument of his cane >
colleague, Judge Hiles. The only con-
tention counsel had with Judge Hlles
was in the latter's theory that the Utah
| commission was required to appoint
canvassing board. Counsel held that
! the powers Of the old county court de-
volved directly upon the Utah commits
slon whose duty it is to canvass the
returns in cases of discrepancies, exc
actly as the old county court did.
The officers are divided into two
classes-territorial officers and others
that are not territorial. Respondents
! contend that they are all territorial Of
fcers, and so they ara. in a certain
sense: but not in the meaning OF this
act. County officers in one sense, are
| territorial officers. but the territorial
| officers are properly and according TO
the law, officers whose authority eX-
tends over the territory generally.
When discrepancy arises [ would
ask counsel what is the Utah COM
mission to do in order to determine
| who is elected if they may not go to the
ballot boxes as part Of the returns. The
Utah commission is body appointed
by the president of the United States
to take charge of elections; by section
256 of the Edmunds law to il Is dele
gated unusual powers. but these powers
We're conferred on it for special puT-
pose Counsel referred to the Statute
which conferred judicial powers on the
commission, and not simply ministerial
powers as possad by ordinary canvass
ing boards; therefore no writ OF man
date would lie. The petitioners, if they
had a grievance, had mlsunder-
stood their remedy. The teSti-
mony introduced at the trial
was foreign to the case and a
waste of time. Who clothed Judge
Bartch with the power to instruct the
Utah commission in the exercise OF us
judicial functions? asked COUNSEL.
Neither Judge Bartch nor this court
had any jurisdiction over the commits
lsion and 1T was foolish to overburden
the already crowded courts with ire
leYant testimony. Judge BartCh might
as we'll undertake to instruct a justice
Of the peace as to what testimony ne
, should admit in a case ne might be
: trying as to instruct him as TO what
: judgment he should enter. If there
are frauds the United States has in
vested the Utah commission with the
power to make the necessary inVesti-
> CATION and to it alone pertains thai
= duty and they are in a position to Ok
+ it much better than Judge BaTtcn car
I because it is their business and tlnf
: court has no right to interfere with
7 them in that judicial duty. The Wrir
of mandate should never have issued
That ends the writ of mandate anC
that ends the writ of prohibition.
! AS TO the judgments entered here a:
. TO the courts. Judge Bautch entered III
: costs against the public officers Wtht
We're seeking for a construction of th'
law. This is wrong, said counsel. IN
less your honors come to the conclu
7 sion that the commission was acdn;
: Ifraudulently. We submit the Judgment
granting the Wr'its should be reversed
{, land whatever else is done the jUdg
+ naent as to costs should be reversed.
: VIII Decide on February -.
n This closed the case, and it was in
Y timated to the court that an early de
y cision was necessary so as not to inter
1 fere with the converting Of the con
Il stitutiOnal convention on March 4.
e In reply to the chief justice, Chair
Q man Letcher said the time required II
e issue the certificates after the render
Il ing of the decision would depend (
y good deal on what the decision was
y If their honors held that g canvass
= ing board had to be appointed in eacl
o county the ballot boxes would have t
:; be sent to the five counties in dispute
o and that would take cOnSiderabl
l. time
: Commissioner Norren said that i
n that case 10 or IS days at least woul
Re be necessary, and if the decision wa
/ not handed down till February %, a
'; had been intimated, it would only b
q given about seven days to make tn
IS canvass and issue the certificates.
IS Associate Justice Smith thought IN
% court should not be required to pas
y hurriedIy on so important a question
= and with their other duties, Fs;oruar
le % was as soon as an opinion could
% rendered.
Of Chief Justice Merritt said thes
- cases should have been pushed to q
II earlier hearing, at which remark
~ was intimated by some Of the alto
az neys that the blame for the delay we
10 at the door Of counsel for the pet
- TONERS.
rs Their honors finally decided tn;
~ February 23 was the earliest date
n. which they could hand down the
of opinion, and the supreme court W.
OF adjourned until that date.
IS -