The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-04
pREc1Ncr

Z 8ilrVlew .l2253l259 z49l 10 T
Z ayette .-s....-. 49E 40 49l
I.ountain Green 46i147l 146I i (
-Iunnlson--.. 255i252l 252l &
manu- l466I 461 3
aiaylielQ ll4l III ISL sa1
siltpurn 40E i0l 49l..
" tfofli I23lI5 23lf s
Mount Pleasant 5. ..l498I50il 5OOf . 7
spring lzG5i2 O6l 205t /
Thistle 23l 23f 23E
W seleS ............ ~ vi 81 62I
Total discrepancies l.... "A t
Cross examined by Attorney Zane
What is your standard Of figuring
discrepa
The books, the poll list and the
tally sheets were all considered of
equal Importance
You made the discrepancies as large
as possible?"
No, sir. I didn't. say that"
The witness. here gave some expla- |
nation as to- the system adopted by
the commission in finding out dfscrep-
ancies, stating that the total number of
votes were added up and divided by
the number of candidates for the pur-
pose Of arriving at the discrepancies If
any, in the tally sheets.
Redirect examination by Attorney
Williams-Witness said in making up
the returns all the members of the
commission took a part. In no case
should the number on the tally sheet
exceed the total number of votes cast.
Defense Rests.
Here the defense rested and Attorney
John NJ Zane, addressing the court,
said that was all the evidence which
would be offered in the three nlandamus
cases from Sanpete county, but there
are three writs of prohibition.
Attorney P. L. Williams objected to
taking up the prohibition cases until
the mandamus cases were disposed Of
Judge Hiles understood that the
stipulation provided that they should
be taken together There were twenty
Tor thirty witnesses from Sanpete county
who were anxious to go home who
should be examined in the prohibition
case and both the mandamus and the
prohibition cases argued together
Judge Powers-The two cases are
totally different, in one the writ com
mands that something shall be done
and the other that something shall not
be done. The evidence in the manda-
mus cases is concluded and we are
ready to argue them and then go on
with the prohibition cases.
Judge Bartch--Both cases might be
heard together. but I have no wish to
force counsel in the matter. The argll-
ments in the nandamus cases may pro
coed.
| Attorney Zane-We, don't wish to
argue. We will reserve our argument
until the prohibition cases are heard.
Judge PowerEIf you waive your
argument we will proceed, but you must
either argue the mandamus cases now
or not at all. s
Judge Zane Opens the Arguments.
Judge Zane then opened the argu-
ments for the petitioners and in sub
stance stated that the case presented is,
| Has the Utah commission the right to
| open the boxes and count the votes
If it has not, the petitioners take, the
position that the defendants ought tc
be commanded to issue certificates tic
| the three petitioners upon the canvass
| of the tally sheets. AS a second pro-
position the law does not authorize
them to canvass the ballot boxes. There
is right under the territorial statute
but the right does not belong to them
There is a provision for a canvassing
liboard.
The commission, argued the Judge
lhas the right to canvass the returns
Ibut no right to go into the ballot boxes
IWhat are the returns? They are the
tally sheets that show the number o.
votes cast for each candidate and the
commission has no right to go behind
those sheets. That is the ground
take and l believe l am correct in it.
Attorney p. l.. Williams For the De.
Tense.
P. L. Williams followed for the com
mission and argued that ander the oil
law it was provided that the count.
court should receive the ballot boxes
canvass the returns, and if no discre
pancies were found, issue certificates
but if any irregularities or discrepan
cies were discovered sufflcien
: in the Judgment of the com
mission to change any result, the,
were to go into the ballot boXe
and determine the rights of the caudi
dates therefrom. That is a duty Whicl
the territorial law provides shall be ap
piled to every office in the territory
These rights We're by the Edmund Law
l conveyed to the Utah commission.
: board of canyassers was to be appointe
: by the commission to canvass all re
turns, except those of members of tn
legislature, which the commission itsal
} had to canvass. Now what are the re
turns? Whatever they are, the com
S mission has the right to canvass
, elections for the legislature and 70
e the constitutional convention, which
I the same as the Legislature.
The returns we. hold are the tall
! sheets the poll books and the Pc
, lists. At least two of the eminer
! counsel on the other side agreed wit
= US as to what constituted the return;
: but when the exigency arose they az
n pear to have changed their minds c
+ there is a divergency Of opinion anon
y them. According to the instruction
n in the act the whole three instrument
f were to be used in making up the tC
e tails and all three were TO be sent t
v the Utah commission. The act read
that, "all lists shall be returned" B
what construction of the law can OF
) posing counsel say that two of thes
t lists are to be dropped? They didn
Il want to do it until this action wa
s commenced. Two of them agreed thu
n all three constituted the returns an
y it is the right Of any person voted fc
y TO demand that the boxes be gone int
e and that their rights shall be adiud
I Gated. The law says they shall e.
d anime the returns. 1t does not say
i portion of the returns. Judge Hile
= Interrupted the speaker and said h
: admitted all that, as far as the oil
y law was concerned, but denied that tt
same power was conveyed on the Uta
commission by the Edmunds act) NJ
Williams said such a view was alt
I gether SO Illogical that it could not /
y. maintained.
. Counsel, continuing, said there ha
been a great deal of prejudging tn
case by interviews with counsel on IL
other side published in a newspape
:. The cry that the election was about
/ be stolen was sent out, but as for IL
E SPEAKER. he preferred to discuss ma