The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-12

The following is a verbatim report OF
Judge Bartch's decision on the petition
of ]. D. Page, candidate for election to
the constitutional convention from San
pete county, for writs Of mandate and
prohibition against the Utah commits
sion:
The relator in this case was, at the
general election held in November. 1894,
a candidate for delegate TO the consti-
autional convention, which is to convene
in March, 1895, to draft a constitution
. for the new state in pursuance of the
act of Congress approved July Is, 1894,
known as the Enabling Act"
The defendants constitute the Utah
commission, a board appointed by the
president of the United States, and
Clothed with certain powers. under the
Aws OF the United States, in the man
agement and conduct of the elections
in this territory. The controversy arose
because of an attempt by the commits
sion to exercise certain powers. which
the relator claims are not witlin its
province, and because of its failure to
perform certain acts which the relator
claims il was its duty TO perform.
What the RelaEOr Says.
The relator AYERS that al the time of
ths election, which was held on the
9Th day of November, 1894. he was a
duly registered and qualified elector,
and candidate in the county of Sanpete
in this territory, and was eligible to the
Office for which he was a candidate;
chat judges and clerks OF election were
appointed as provided by law, and
acted at said election. and that the for
malities provided and required by law
were in all respects complied with, and
the election was in ali respects duly aud
legally conducted: that as soon as the
polls closed the judges and clerks I'M
mediaJely proceeded to convass the
votes cast IL the several precincts OF
said county, and without adjournment
completed the canvass in accordance
with law; that he was a can
didate for election to the office
of delegate TO said constitutional
convention as one of several dele
gates apportioned to said county by said
enabling act; that it was determined by
said canvass that he received a ma
jority of the votes cast for said office
that the results Of said canvass were
placed on the lists. were certified, and
the lists sealed and forwarded, as
directed by said Utah commission, in
the manner provided by law; that said
commission received the returns of said
election, and, having broken the t;eals
and carefully examined the returns, NJ
Irregularities or discrepancies appeared
therein affecting the result of said cleo
ton or the result Of the election of said
Telator, or of any candidate for said
Office nor the rights of any person
voted fer, for said Office; that the SAID
commission refused to accept said re-
turns as correct: that there was no oc.
casion to open the ballot boxes from the
precinct CT said county for the purpose
Of canvaSsing the same ITO determine
Inc rights Of any person TO said Office
because there was no disagreement in
the returns which affected the right:
Of any per on to said Office: that the
commission, after the competition Of the
caEEass, refused to declare the result
thereof, and refused to make an alb.
stract thereof, or to certify to its cor.
rectness as required by law, and thai
it has refused TO make an abstract Of
the returns showing the election o.
the relator 10 said office, or to make
out and transmit to him a certideat e
of his eleetion. after demand made
therefor.
The Defendants Deny
The defendants deny the allegations
4 of the relator as to his right to the
aice as a. result of said election, and
shat there were no discrepancies ir
the returns of the election which af.
fected the result of the election, as tc
the relator or others; and allege tina,
there were such irregularities and
discrepancies on the face of the re.
turns thai the right of the relator was
affected thereby, and that for thai
reason there was occasion to open the
ballot boxes. and because of such ir.
Irregularities and discrepancies the
ballot boxes were opened by the de,
PENDANTS in order that the ballots
might re canvcssed and the error cor.
rected.
After an alternative writ of mandate
had been granted, the relator mad
application for a writ of prohibition
alleging substantially the same facts
and asked that the defendants. the
n eI--4