The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-28

at poll of the Second precinct took
the ballot boxes to his office before
sending them TO the Utah commission
While there they were opened in the
presence Of George w. Meyer for the
purpose of examining the mechanism
OF the box. 1t was q foolish thing to
do No Ballots had either been taken
out or put into the box while 1t was
IN his care,
George w. Meyer.
George ". Meyer said he saw the
ballot boxes from the Second precinct
at r J. Days office. In looking at
the D0x Witness expressed a desire to
know how the slot worked and how
the ballots we're got into it. DAILY
opened the lid and showed the mechan-
ism and closed the box again. No bal
lots were put in or taken out
Cases Closed
This closed the case.
| Judge Hiles--We submit it without
! argument
Attorney Williams-We submit with
out argument also except by referring
your honor to the statute which gays
the writ of mandate is the counterpart
OF the writ of prohibition
Judge BaTtch 10 Judge HileS--HaVe
you anything to say about the statute?
Judge Hiles-I don't think 1 can en-
tighten the court on the case. There
has been too much talk in these cases
already, but If the court desires will
say a few words
Judge Bartch-I viii hear you shortly
and would like your construction of
the supreme courts decision in this re-
gard
| Mr. Hile5 then said a few words ar
gu1ng that a writ of prohibition in
these cases would lie and that it vas
proper remedy for the petitioners.
Hon. p. l.. WiIliams' Argument.
( Mr.. Williams in reply said:
The court, upon due consideration
! and deliberation. determined and ad-
! Indicated that the mandamuS would
( not lie. and denied the peremptory
writ and rendered judgment for the
! evidence before the court, which are
! these returns; it appearing to the court
I that there were discrepancies appear
ing upon their face, which, in the eye
/ OF the law, and according to the pro-
! visions of the statute, made it the
duty of this returning board to go into
I the ballot boxes. And now what? They
ask this court, after that determine
! ton, to issue a writ OF prohibition
against the same board to say tYou
shall not go into the ballot boXes:'
Could Inconsistency and irrationahty
/ proceed further? Could an attitude
more contradictory and inconsistent be
! invited than that? Can the court ac-
! cept an invitation Of that kind, to cross
! the track of its decision efter due de-
| liberation by the very next case that
! is presented to it?
( The argument is to turn this court
into returning board. 1t has no ap-
| pellate power over this returning
! board. The only other part of the logic
is that their having power to so into
4 the ballot boxes did not depend upon
the question whether or not they are
| honest votes in the ballot boxes. But
! the statute says that the writ Of pro-
hibition arrests the proceeding of any
! tribunal, corporation, board or person,
4 whether exercising functions judicial
or ministerial when such proceedings
are without or in excess of the juriSdiC-
ton of any such tribunal, corporation,
board or person. Now the powers Of
such corporation or board or judicial
tribunal are powers that are general,
I their limitations are the same to the
same class Of cases. In other words
they are powers that have their boun-
4 darieS marked and circumsoribed and
laid down by law. When determined
by the court the argument here is that
their power depends upon facts in the
individual case, and that when you
have decided to grant writ of prohi-
! bition in one case measured by the
mere eXtraneous facts in that case, 1t
does not become a precedent for any
other case. And still they are asking
} the court to decide in this case to
grant a writ of prohibition, not meas
ured by the legal boundaries Of the
power of this board at all; to grant ii
because they say that there are Illegal
votes in this box Is to say that the
power to go into the ballot box does
not depend upon a question judicially
determined but to say it depends upon
the question Of a discrepancy appear
ing upon the returns. And again, will
4 the court hold the parties before it are
the parties affected by this proceeding
upon an application for prohibition
not an inquiry Ike that Of an cleo
ton contest, to determine the power
of the board upon its conclusion
:. whether or not there have been Illegal
votes cast?
It is simply a perversion of the law
1t is an outrage and a confusion and
a blending together Of all remedies
1t is asking this court to determine
upon the rights of parties who are not
, before your honor and who are to be
affected by this determination wher
you say that they shall or they shall
: not do this, or that they shall pro-
coed according to your honor's indi-
: yidual judgment. or how they shall
proceed: that they shall disregard
some of the ballots and only count
; others, 1t having been determined II
this case to go into the ballot box. L
is, l submit, substitution Of the judg
) rnent of this court for that kind of {
ruling in the matter.
It is the purpose of our government
'to keep separate the different depart
ments. The government is as rigid il
: combining to the courts their functions
and denying to your hOuOr the uSurpa
! ton of functions Of this sort, as a re
turning board, as it is positive in in
sisting that the board shall not uSurl
: the functions of the bench. The yer.
absurd consequence of this is this
T the court has determined that the,
cannot issue certificates from the fac
of these returns because of discrep
/ ancies apparent upon their face, ant
that it is their duty to go into the bal
lot boxes. But if it grants a prohibition
to keep them from going into the bal
: lot boxes what is the consequence
The people Of the Third precinct haV
nobody TO represent them In the con
ventfon That must follow. but
1 does seem to me absurd. Let us de
J ternline this question and determine
] it promptly.
, Judge Powers Closes.
E Judge Powers followed Mr.. William
: and closed for the defendants. II
said:
Nay It please your honor, desir
to direct your honor's attention to tn
decision of the supreme court, and i
, the few moments that [ shall address
? the court viii confine myself target
r to that and the case that we hay
\ here.
Counsel are assuming here stat
: Of facts that do not exist. Ny learne