The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-10-31
Judge Ro-app's Decision in the
Weber Ballot Case.
THE PETITION IS VOID
DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE LAWS
REQUIREMENTS.
In Consequences, the Republican
Candidates Cannot BE Voted For
Under the Party Name or Emblem
of the Independent Republicans.


In Ogden yesterday Judge Rolapp
rendered very important decision. 1t
is a complete defeat for the parties
who were trying to get the names of
Republican candidates on the ticket
under the emblem of the Independent
Republicans.
After reviewing the history Of the
case, and the requirements of the law,
the opinion continues:
In this case it seems the signers
selected as political name the follow
ing words: lndependent Repuoncan
Party" to which they added the selec-
ton Of 10 to 1 bee hive emblem, which
l doubt was either required or author
lied. The clerk had heretofore re-
ceived notice from the secretary of
state that a party under the name Of
the Independent Republican party had
regularly nominated their candidates
and adopted said name, and the 10 to
l bee hive emblem as their party de-
vice. 1T is admitted that. this organiza-
ton, together with it's name, emblem
and nominees, came into existence by
a certificate of nomination as provided
in ssection 6 of the ELECTION act. When
the signers upon that certificate filed
it with the secretary of state, its eff
feet ceased except as to the rights re-
quested and required hereunder, to-
wit: That certain electors and con-
gresham should be placed upon the
official ballot of each county. Such
certificate could not be supplemented
by the filing of any other certificate Of
nomination for offices not filed OF
named by the original certificate or its
signers. because If the signers of the
certificate in question had the right to
sI1ar hni
the selected name and emblem of any
other signers who had failed to make
local nominations, clearly any other
hundred voters could do the same
thing if prior in time. Or, in other
words, if say the Republican party of
this state should for any reason only
choose state officers, can it be contend
the county could name the regularly
nominated local candidates of the
Democratic ticket. and by the mere
filing of a certificate of nomination,
claim the right to have such Demo-
cratic nominees voted for under the
regular Republican emblem? In that
case it would simply amount to the
fact that certain voters had chosen the
name, emblem and part of the nomi-
nees of one party and part of the nomi-
neeS of another party. That was never
the intention of the legislature in franz
ing the election act And yet, that is
exactly what the petitioners in this
case claim. So far as the certificate
discloses, or so far as the testimony
discloses. the signers of this certificate
had neither name. emblem nor nominees
of their own. They simply borrowed
the name, emblem and nominees of GER
tain persons who had heretofore prop
erly organized for the purpose of fav-
ing these facts appear upon the Off
cial ballot, and thereafter the signers
of the certificate in question borrowed
the nominees of the convention of an
other party and claim now that they
may add the two together and come
within the provision of the act enab-
ling persons to make Independent NOM
nations.
The sixth and seventh requisites in
my opinion, are the most important.
because they affect the genuineness of
the signatures of the signeTs and of their
having taken the oath subscribed by
law. I am of the opinion that the GER
tificate attached in both the original
and amended form is simply an ac-
acknowledgements, and that there should
have been attached over the signature
of each subscriber an oath, as in the
act prescribed. The object of this act
is to insure purity in all matters per-
tanning to the election, and a great
1
have been inserted in the act for the
purpose of,securing the objects desired.
1t is the we'll known experience of all
men that people will thoughtlessly at
tach their signatures to almost any
kind of a petition presented. For that
reason, no doubt, the legislature pro-
vided that in so important q matter as
the nomination of independent candi-
dates great solemnity should be at
I q m nf he int
that the mere testimony of the notary |
that the subscribers took the oath is |
insufficient. In the very nature of !
things, many a person might never
have taken such an oath, and yet
through the forgetfulness of the notary
such facts would be impossible to |
prove. Ny attention has not been
called to any case where, except in TAX
ing a judicial oath, the usage has been
established that such oath can be |
taken without the signature of the per-
son taking 1t, and / believe that is the |
intention of the act. But even if the |
amended certificate was sufficient, and |
granting that it was filed within the |
three days allowed by law, yet that
petition did only have yhe names of 81 |
persons attached to it, who had even |
attempted to comply with the statute. |
The mere fact that some other per-
sons, within the six DAYS OF . |
of election. had additional certificates
attached, would not enable them to |
claim to be within the provision of |!
the act. I am of the opinion that the |
clerk should be ordered to desist and !
refrain from printing the official bal |
lots in the manner proposed, and that |
the candidates nominated by the GER
in question cannot be voted !
for under the party name or device of I
the Independent Republican party.
Proper judgments and orders may |
be drawn to carry into effect this order I
and opinion.