Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-02-02
NOW WE'LL KNOW.
Arguments In The Sanpslo County Bloc.
lion Cases 10 Progress Today.
TWO HOURS A SIDE ALLOWED.
The Opinion Of the supreme Court
viii Be Awaited With Great
Interest by an.

fof the hearing of legal Arguments on
appeal in the 5anpete county election
cnees, there was an unusually large
number Of peraons In attendance when
all the judges took their seats on the
bench shortly after 10 O'Clock.
Clerk Bacho read the minutes Of
Thursdays sesslon, and when these
hal been approved and signed Judge
Bartch--ho having tried the cases In
tho lower coutl-rstirsd, leaving
chief Justice Merritt and Associate
Justices smith anu King to cit and
ndjudicato.
rhe court stipulated that the argu-
ments Of counsel should be limited to
two hours on each side.
The title If the cause was that Of J.
d. Page, plaintiff aud respondent, VI
). H. Leloher OF al tls members Of the
Utah Commission), defendants aud
appellant.
The 5hnpete contingent Was fepts.
scented, ne upon the hearing ia tho
court below, by Zaue d
Zane, Judge Bennett and Hiles
aud Miner the Commission by
Attorney Farley l.. Williams and
Judge Henderson,. Judge powete,alto
Of council Tor the appellant, was not
present on this occasion, he being now
engaged IN an important trial In
Idaho.
When the matter was ca lied up this
morning, Chief Justice Merritt IN.
quired whether counsel proposed b
argue the mnudamus and prohibition
cases together. An affirmative
answer was given, and Al orusy p, l..
Williams then took the door and made
the opening argument.
The cause comes ny on tho ludg-
meIt roll alone. The findings showed,
inter ala, that Page received "A MAORI
" Of ihe votes cast, ~ daily aacertuinod
~ canvass, and that the returns
showed no Discrepancy; that certain
iorgeties had been perpt tfsted on the
returns nf,er the Utah Commission tt-
coived them, the same having been
made TOT tue purpose Of creating die.
crepancleti thattho Commission agreed
lu open court 10 issue certificates 20
Mussrs. Page, Jolly and Larson; that
tue ballot boxes since tho elut on hnu
been "stufied;" also that tho Commits.
zion, "having canvasAed tho returns
and abstract, aud ascertained Pago's
election, had nevertheless Tofustd
him his certificate sfler demand, aud,
in spite Of his protest, had counted the
ballots In the 'stniiod' ballot boxes,
anu were about 10 issue n certificate 10
his opponent and refuse one b Page"
The judgment prohibited tho Com.
mission ifOm Issuing certiho Gates other
wise than from the face OF tho returns.
The circumstances Of the caso nTo by
this time iamiliart 10 readers OF the local
newspapers.
Tue respondent Page was caudl-
date for the position u delegate TO the
ensuing Constitutional Convention
from Sanpete county Mt the lAst
November election, aud according TO
tue returns, 40 certified by tho Judges
Of the several pteciucts VI Sanpotc, u
appeared that he was 0nu OF the several
candidates who received a mJorlty OF
tbs votes cast. Upon the trial Of the
cause In the court below, Page intro
uuced Ia evidence tue tally sheet re-
turns certified by the respective Judges,
with summary Of the result as 10 each
candidate voted Tor, compiled there.
from by the defendants, and also put
la the demsnd by the applicant upOu
the attendants, that they issue to MIN
a certificate Of his election "A delegate,
further showing that defendants then
refused 10 Issue such certificate.
Ihetsupon the defendants, 10 mali
tain the Issue on their part, offered la
evidence the registry Isis anu JUDGE
lists VI the several precigcts OF Saupste |
county, TO which offer tue plant n OBJ |
loctsd, ON toe ground that the last |
mentioned lists we're incompetent, im. |
material and Irrelevant, and did not |
tend 10 prove anY material fact or issue. |
The court made a pro lorna ruling,
everything the objection anu admitting |
the lnst mentioned documents, subject |
10 such objection.
The general queit on presented by |
the record 10 whether, under the stat |
utes Of the United States Hnd OF Utan |
Territory governing tho election Of /
legislative and territorial officers Ia /
iis Territory, the Utah Commission
has any power 10 correct Irregularities
OF discrepancies In tile election returns
OF any precinct or Of any county ~
tnis Territory.
IL IL cont uded on the part OF the
appellants tust under tue provisions n |
Tue Edmunds law they have the power
To- perform the ean0 duties and iuuc.
ous u respect Of the examination anu
correct on OF the precinct returns 90
the c-uuty court AMI county CLERK hHI
n1er the act Of 1878, before the ~
sage Of the Edmuudu law; but, say the
respondents, ( this be- true, then /
olluwa either that teut uns II and -
90 HE act VI 1875 are repealed, or Ulsu
tue governor aud secretary SIN had
the power anu Junction OF Canvassing
the 9, tIruA provided Tor Ia the latter
actions, or II Involves the feemingly
absurd Interpretation thai the Ulhh
Commission has deveiysl upon u
hll the functions Il sections is,
10, 20, II anu % Uf tbs acts Of
1873, which 10 tAniAmOunt 20 say
lug that they have 10 perform
The duties and functions OtH double
canvass. That "a to say, they are %
canvass tue precinct returns, correct
Tue Irregularities aud discrepancies
therein, Ruu then again canvata their
own cat vass under the provisions Of
feutiOnH n anu % before mentioned.
such, 1t IL cOnteuued, was not tue Ia.
lonti0n OF the Legislature.
ObIooliOnH aTn made that VIII Of
prohibition cannot issue ~ a ministerial
DO ~, The appellants conteuu, how
tVef-with singular oontrarlety OIL
a'gumoni, say tie reHpOhdenlb' oout-
lui-that the Utah Commission IL d
Judicial body, eKerolHing Judicial func-
llous. II that DO 90, they insist, then
On their own aTgunitnt there was no
D HHa I