The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-24
THE coMMssroN vrvpIcATED.

Of Utah IN the Sanpete election case
does not seem to be fully understood
by a good many people. The text Of
the Opinion, delivered by Justice Smith,
the conclusions of which if not all the
reasoning were concurred in by the
other Justices, will be found in this
issue Of The Herald.
The mandamus is sustained, the pro-
hfbition is denied. This was what Judge
Bartch at first decided, but suDse-
quently went back on his own ruling.
But the main question in the contro-
Versy has been the powers of the
Utah Commission in canVassing re-
turns of members of the Legislative
Assembly and delegates to the Consti-
tutional Convention. IN that respect
the Supreme Court entirely .reverses
the decision of Judge Bartch.
The court holds that the returns from
the judges of election in such cases are
to be sent to the Utah Commission di-
rect Judge Bartch held that the Com
mission should appoint an intermediate
board of canVassers. to take the place
Of the county clerk and members Of
the county court, and the returns
should then be certified up to the Com
mission.
The Supreme Court says Of the Utah
Commission: "They possess the same
power that the county clerk and MEM
bers of the county court formerly pos
sessed" Judge Bartch denied that the
Commission held any such power.
The Supreme Court decides that the
Utah Commission have power TO go to
the ballot boxes and make a recount
when there are irregularities or dis
crepancieS in the returns sufficient to
affect the result of the election as to
any candidate, but that in the case of
the applicant for the mandamus there
were not discrepancies sufficient to at
feet the result to him, and therefore
the rnandamus will issue requiring the
certificate to be issued on the face of
the returns. Judge Bartch decided that
the Commission had no power to go
into the ballot boxes under any cir
CumStdnceS.
The court decides that there is no
necessity for the writ Of prohibition
the costs Of that case. then, which was
the expensive part of the proceedings,
will fall on the applicants for the
writ. Judge Bartch, after reversing
himself, granted the writ and so tried
to put the costs on the Commission.
We mention these differences be-
tween the two decisions that people
who claim Judge Bartch was sustained
by the higher court, may see how much
they. and he, are mistaken. The prin-
ciple involved has been decided en-
phatically in favor of the Commission
and against the rulings of Judge
Bartch.
The position taken by The Herald as
to the powers Of the Utah Commission
is fully sustained by the Supreme
Court. The question as to the sufff-
cheney OF the discrepancies in the San
pete returns to warrant a recount of
the ballots is another matter. The
court decides that they were INSULT
Gent but that if they had been great
enough to affect the result to the can
didate. the ballots could and should
have been recounted.
1t will be seen by q careful reading
of the opinion that Judge Bartch, John
M. Zane and the Salt Lake Tribune
| were all egregiously wrong on this
| question, but that the second person
in that peculiar trinity was further
off that the other twain. He played
the role of the prophet and announced
Iaf
would decide, and his pragmatic prog
nostication was a fiat failure. The
court decided that the certificate must
| issue on the face Of the returns.
AS the majority Of the Commission
/ had already announced their determin-
alton to issue the Sanpete certificates on
| the face Of the returns the courts de-
/ cision is a victory for them. And the
expense and trouble and bad feeling OF
! all this litigation might have been
avoided. if the proposition of the Dem.
/ ocratic Commissioners in the beginning
! had been carried out. The board
| would have gone to Sanpete investi.
| gated the whole matter on the spot
| and the certificates would have been
| issued to the persons elected without
| further ado
Let it be understood that all the de.
lay in the settlement of the convention
/ question has been occasioned by Re.
publican obstruction. 1t was worked
up for partisan effect. 1t was designed
! to put the Democratic part of the
/ Commission in false position before
the public. The issue shows that they
were right in their construction of the
powers conferred upon them by law
and they are to be congratulated OF
the Vindication which they have re-
ceived in this Supreme Court decision.