The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-09

the case. The objection was, there
fore, sustained.
Attorney Zane desired an exception
entered and stated that he expected
to prove by H NJ. Wells, j. u. Dolly,
". S. McCornic1z, r. d. Kimball M. }.
Cheesman. S. J. Kenyon and j. H
Bacon that the word voted. written
lopposite five names in Ephrainl pre-
cinct returns list four In that of Mo
roni. one in, Mount Pleasant and one
| in Chester was not In the same hand
writing as the rest of the sheet, and
| to prove By the same witnesses that
the word voted opposite the names
l Of Scott ana era Their was in the same
handwriting as the minutes OF the
Utah commission, which were kept by
George Blair. The stencgr apher made
e minute Of this and entered the ex-
ception.
An agreement was entered in by
counsel on both sides that the man
damus and prohibition cases from We
Der and Box Elder counties should De
controlled by the decision In the pres
+ emit cases, but that the case from the
Third precinct of Salt Lake city would
| be heard separately after the present
| cases were concluded.
Arguments Open.
Judge Miner then opened the arg1l-
nlent5 for the petitioners by calling ms
fonor's attention to the powers or the
Utah commission. according TO ms IN
| terpretation of the statute, which was
| that the commission had no autheTlty
| to go to the hallot boxes. He oMluteq
Ito state that on Nov. 80 he flied with
| the Utah commission a request that
| THE commission would open the Dallot
boxes of Ogden, Second precinct, Bircn
Creek and Ogden First ward and stat
fed that the recount would show a dlI-
ferent result for his then client, MI
Hayes.
The judge then went on to argue
THAT the alleged discrepancies really
did not exist, being created by torger,
les
Attorney P. L. Williams.
Attorney p. Il. williams followed on
behalf Of the defendants, ana replied
Ito the arguments of Judge Miner. The
arguments of counsel necessarily We're
closely akin to those put forth IN the
lmandamus cases Counsel held that
1.-The duties of the commission were not
ministerial but that the commission
| was invested with discretionary pow
ers and in the exercise Of That discre-
1 ton neither a writ of mandate nor a
Lswrit of prohibition would lie.
The courts attention was called to
the fact that this was not a contest
lease, the question Before the court was
Enot, who is elected? and the court cam
not pass on that The point at issue
lis, has the commission power to resort
to the ballot box on what 1T deems, w
Tits best judgment, discrepancies suffi-
q cient to alter the result? On that cues
ton and that question alone, the court
i can Dass
i Counsel also held that it was i'm
material to the issues in this case
i whether the poll lists had been changed
4 or not. It had been established beyond
la doubt that no member Of the COM
mission had been guilty of any fraud
and they were the judges as to the
reliability of the returns, and if they
were satisfied the returns contained dis
Icrepancies they could go to the ballot
boxes.
Mr.. Williams concluded his address
at SIS and court adjourned till II
! o'clock this morning, when Attorney
John NJ Zane will argue for the petit
TONERS, followed by Judge Powers fol
the defense and Judge Hiles for tft
petitioners will close the case.