The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-04

that is the registration list, the poll
list and the tally sheets.
The objection was overruled and the
papers, memoranda, etc, as offered
were admitted
Are there any other abstracts show.
ing the votes cast for each candidate
except these tally sheets furnished to
the commission" queried Mr. Zane.
In my Judgment answered the
witness, there is none"
Asked to be positive as to this, the
witness said: There is none.''
After some discussion the court over
ruled Mr.. Williams objection.
The witness was next requested to
read off the total for each candidate
for the county from the tabulated
statement placed in his hands, and this
he did, as follows; Terry, 1,947; c. NJ.
Lund, 1858; Taylor, 1916; Alfred. .353.
Beal, 1853; Reid, 1852; Madsen, 134S:
Page, 1,3S8; Petersen, 1,422; c. P. Lar
sen, 14O9; Christensen, 1,410; A. c.
Lund, 1,421; j. S. Jolly, LAOS.
In cross-examination by Mr. Will
mans, witness said he did not know
that any other papers were rec sived
IN connection with these tally sheets.
How do you know that?" asked Mr..
Williams.
Because have the knowledge, I
suppose" was the answer.
Witness said he assisted in, the can
vass of the returns from Sanpete coun-
ty for the election of delegates to the
constitutional convention
MIR. Williams next asked whether the
tally sheets now produced here were
all the papers. used in making the can
Vass of the returns.
Objected to by the other side and OBJ
lection overruled.
Witness answered the question with
Didn't You examine other papers in
making that canvass?" further in
quired Mr.. Williams.
Objected TO again as irrelevant, i'm
material and not cross-examsnation.
Judge Bartch-He may answer.
NO" replied the witness.
Did the commission examine any
other papers?" continued. Mr.. Williams.
But the question was objected to on
the same grounds and overruled, and
an exception noted.
Petitioners Rest.
Eve rest said Mr.. Zane. Thereupon
Judge Powers was upon his feet a
moment later. ''At this stage of the
case" said he" we desire to move
that the peremptory writ be denied and
this action he dismissed, for the, reason
tnat the petitioner has not made out
any case. Whatsoever. It does not ap-
pear from the testimony introduced
here that the returns from Sanpate
county with relation to this case have
been canvaSsed. II must appear, from
what is before the court, that the COM
mission was simply proceeding to can
vass. They have not got any farther
than the examination of the tally sheets
and the compilation of the figures
shown by the tally Sheets
Judge Hiles, speaking against the
motion, said he understood it was ad-
mitted by the pleadings that the re-
l3tor made demand upon the commits
sion to canvass the vote of Sanpete
county, as required by the statute. and
that they had refused. Section of the
EdmundS act provided that the Utah
commission should canvass the re-
turns from the various counties in re-
spect of legislative and territorial off
GERS. Counsel claimed, under the ex-
sting legislation. that these precinct
-eturnS thus certified to were the equiv
3lent Of the abstract of the general
'eSult provided for in the election act
NJ this territory. 1878, that up on that
distract they should issue certificates
TO the persons elected The territorial
election laws, counsel insisted. were ap-
1licable here. Sections 81 and % of the
act Of 1878 were also quoted by Mr.
Hiles. It was in evidence here, he said
hat this WAS the only abstract of the
'eturns of the election in Sanpete coun-
Y that had ever been furnished to the
commission, and those papers he re-
peated, were the equivalent of that
oh RI 1oa
by the county clerks before the passage
4 the Edmunds law. The law requires
he commission to certify and issue
election certificates from the general
bstract Of the returns.
Attorney Williams-It is not an alb
stract at all.
Judge Hiles-We claim it is an alb
| gtract within the meaning of the act.
The motion of Judge Powers was
| )verruled.
Chairman Letcher.
Chairman Letcher was then examined
FOR the defendo qts by Attorney P. L.
Williams. He said the duplicate tally
iheets in question were delivered to
he commission through the secretary
IF the territory.
ITO whom were they delivered?"
Witness said to the commission as q
Whole, while that DOQy was IN Session
Were there amy other papers be
sides these duplicate tally sheets placed
before you from which you made VI
your returns? '
Objected to by Attorney Zane on this
yround that the tally sheets alone con-
stituted the returns, the poll list and
he poll book being no part of tbs
same.
The objection was overruled.
Witness, answering, said there were
| 1ther documents. the poll books and
the list of persons voting as well as
he tally leets.
Did you examine and use all these
n making the canvass ?"
yes
These were put in evidence over The
objection of counsel for the petitioners
Mr.. Williams then asked the witness
10 point out discrepancies existing in
the three documents, if any existed.
Witness said there were discrepancies
md offered the minutes of the commits
SION to show where the discrepancies
arose. The witness had kept those
minutes himself for the reason that the
clerks were not present when the
counting was done, as their presence
was objected to.
(Coptinued on Page 81