Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-02-26
STILL STRUGGLING.
Testimony in ,ha Third Precinct Pro.
hibi,iol Cases.
Hank Barnes Holatls Very Strange
Conversation that iio Had
with T.. z. Rich.

WIN t. f. AhlANs
Whom the hearing on the petitions
iol thr wfiIs0f mandate in tho Third
precinct election cns1l began before
Judge Bauch ~ 1880 laBt evening,
Judge Bonnet, Judge Niuur anu Az.
iorucy Ogden Hlss were present repre-
r5nliug tho petitioners, Mours. Smith
aud Emory, aud Judges Powers nnd
Henduteou representing the Utah
Commission.
Attorney HilHaJlfcstiug the court,
said the only matter 90 bu tfiod was Che
question 0idllcfupanciJs,a uI both cases
might Do ,flod together Ola the petition
lJr wri.g Of manIstr.
Judge Powers agreed 90 this mud the
petitioners called C0mmlsalouuF j., ".
rA,lo,g 20 Tue stand. Attorney Hiiss
putin evidence tho tally suurts Of POLLS
j. = unu Bot the Iuirl precinct of salt
Lake without objection.
tlmmisgiOuur rail0ck having been
c4ainingi uH thu only witness, tuu one
the duty OF the commandment 90 rt-
count al the voices Tor every candidate
on simply the votes fUr those candle
datcs in which tho discrepancies b1.
tween the poll Hess aud luu tally Sheets
Appeared,
judge powou, on behalf of tho
Commission, argued that when the
cJuanlsai0uUr8 Wual 90 tbU ballot boxes
ID ".|
count tlf uIl enc candidates iu order %
obtain correct irBulL
Attorney Hi.es held that this pro-
cgudius affected only those VINO we're
parties 90 the HUt.gu, ami tuat tho re-
counting OF the votes thuuld b1 con.
iuui % those candidates lu whose
v0goh discrepancies Uguurfuji tbui %
was the duty of tho UJmmlTUUuuu o.
isiuu Cerulcliua 90 those shown ny tho
laCg OF tho returns O. l1 elected, 10
was unnecessary Tor the urt, iu thir
action, o. decide Hs 20 any other UuuIl.
dato., tot the benefit Ui Mo UluL Com.
mlsslani tuau thU.g patty 10 ,nu faction.
Judge Bar,gl said Lp would take the
mnitUf under ulylaUmuuL end give hiu
GuciIIUu uu Iuusday morning, He
wluiI not huaf the Prohibition cases
until he haI decided the manIumuB
Gases anyway. Ih.s last sentence wac
uttered VITA Q tmllg, upOu Judge
Powers stating that tuvy were roAly o.
80 auuud with Thorn Right then.
THE WITS uENED.
Judge But1h rendered his decision
| ut 40 O'Clock thls m0tAlag. ANrTttAt-
| ing tue tito OF the cause uiB uuu8t pro-
| UtVlel. These two CaseB were heard
| lA.t evening on wits OF mandate d
| compel tho Utah Commission 20 issuu
| certificates tu she rulat0Ts, aud tue
| only question presented was us
10 whether the Utah Commission,
| when u discrepancy appears on the
| tally ehUUtf, or the returns, have a
! flght 20 canvass Oh the ballots relating
10 ihgt particular gilicg, or whether
| they are confined O. CAnvasHlng the
ballots simply 40 Tar no the particular
i pUTa0u IL concerned to whom the die,
| cfopnuUy Tairm, I have muJ0 us Cart-
ful an examination OF thls qIgali3n az
| time would permit aud thu uuiu iu,
! vulyuu Dr. found 90 re- part of section .li
| Of the Revised Statutes. lss5, SO iaI
as material In this decision 10 fUui8 ~
| ioll1wt;
"But " tho right Of any
| person voted Tor for any
office ls In any way affected, then On,
clerk anu said members OF tnu county
court shall open the ballots from said
precinct ana canvass tho same no FAR ~
10 determine tho rights Of tho person
whose Office may he aleClei."
This section (cOnIiuuui the court
gave the members VI tho county court
aud tho county clerk the night 90 10
behind tho Tuturnsl anu canvass tue
ballots whom d discrepancy occurred on
the face OF the returns which affected
the right Of any person b the office
Now, the statute says they shall can,
vass the bnllOtg, or canvass tho same 20
TAR as 10 determine the rights OF tht
person effected. The question, then,
uccurs- Can they luterminu the TlHht'
u tho puru0n whose oillcB may be
Affected by amply canyasslng tho bal
lots In relation 10 such person where
tho discrepancy appuaU. IL 30 the
same OilCo-a NUMBER OF candidates
all ON tho tlukUt 90 10 elected % the
same utllrt. Whichever number re-
| crivgs % minority OF the votes 10 90 be
! DECLARED elected, il would EuUm qIliJ
! dlulCuIt to determine luat what lIt
| effect OF an erroneous count would be
anu what it would lead g.. IL might
! uu possible that those receiving thg
| very highuat number Of votes had re-
| cr.Vsd votes that belonged 10 the one
| receiving the lowest number OF votes,
ami / Gm dl1pJald 70 hold that where
q discrepancy appears upon the face OF
too returns which entities the Uiau
| COmmigsion 10 go into the ballot tOXui
atnll, that they have tue right thunl
10 canvas tue votes relating 10 IA,
| uulce, aud for the candidates affected
| by such pnige. / think the statute
however, does not contemplate thai
the two offices Arn different Fol
lns.Rnce, IN tho case Of a sheriff ami Q
county CLERK, u discrepancies should
appear as 90 tho various caudidatus-i
de sheriff, tlcy would have no Fight
although tho names Of the plrtiei
might appear on the same ticket, 60
canvass the votes VI the other cauIi
dates IA determining tue discrepancy
which might arise IN tue candidate i0l
sheriff. But here the oludiiiteg Br,
All for the same uiiicu-all ltIugglna
for thblF election US 90 thsii AMI 80 o.,
Supreme Court Of this Territory ual
held that n discrepancy on the iuo9 U
Tho tally HhlU,a would oltltl,
them 10 10 Into tho bsllJ
bgXes aud ClnyasB tho vote
of such 0liCe, think that their opu
structiou would also be Ia line WIKI
what have indicated. On the face ID
the roturna ia this case showing dis
I HH.4.N FHHs. RuHFInH % a.