Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-12-22

mtui, and pruyldca that euch nppOir-
tee shnli h0Il tho tflicH nutil h'e ruc.
cufsor shali tg elected hul qualified, as
provided by law; uCuht'ess u legls.
lative enactment was contemplated,
In the 1hseuce o! tuch u law there
TOuld bs great lorce 10 the claim that
euch appointee would holi unul the
general election to MI the Uiiics la
1901, aad until the qualification Of
euch person, or = successor after thut
time. tat 30 inuch OF sec.inu . OF the
act OF April 5.n, above quoiei, as re-
!atss to elections, wo hola 10 be valid,
II must be held to Govern.
The plaintiff also inslets that ballots
prepared anu printed according 10 the
act OF March rs, above nj Il ioneG, and
vxuiueively usel a. the November
election, d. not ufprl uquaI tscilIlieB
to vote to al vltea; That a silo. msy
be cast lus party Candidates With laGs
difficulty than Tor those canIidn.ps
WHO have no emblem on tie ballot 10
represent thtm; tia. n partiSan con
vote On Ter thRA mn Il pendent, AM
unu that tho law uous not oprta.o
qualify and uniformly GA All voters.
10 IS true Il Ut parry organ tons
may by TIE Observance o, certain To
lhlttulthAb HANt huh ttfhtH . lNGlf
candidates, ana their en- b en- printed
on the ticket, while oihef candidates
are required 10 obtain tho signatures
Of specified number Oi voters to a
Certificate before their name uiu be
printed On the ballot. AMI by simply
placing a cross opposite lGrty en-.
hlem, vote may be cast Tor al the
casdida,es Of u party, while vote Tor
fltaF ~ ff Al
less than all can only TO given by a
ctOsa opposite The name Ct each cAndi.
date, ana n q voter wlshes 10 cnst y
vote !Or Candidate whose name is not
on II, he Ia obliged to write the name
On the ballot. ant place cross oppcste
TO It.
o. c0ure The voter should he allowed
to ueriorm his duty with the Ieasl
q tilCuity and iAcJuveuiouCe, con.
slstsnt with an honest ana fair eIectlUu
--,uo unnecessary impedlmenie ot IN.
convenience should be thrown iu Ms
way.
The System ,eads to euc9ursge The
voting OF etraignt ucEete, ana 10 dis-
courage iuu,pentcnt voting, which
some think IL an Ubjec,iOn. ihe sys.
TEN mas It's merits rs we'll AS dement's,
and thu legislative department of The
State government has eeeu NJ, IL us
wisdom, to enact the Jaw, 0nd we do
not feel authorized to overiurn the
ps0ple's VIII, Rs exrrosbeI tstaugh
That body, in the law,
The court holds that none OF the
various objections urged 10y the plain.
tn is wen founded.
We therefore uCny the application
for the writ.
/ concur 10 the reCu't and will tile
separate opinion BARTcH, J.
MINER, J..
C1ncuts Ia the result.
STANTON a PRISONER
Following is the opiulou 10 the
Stanton habeas corpus relating 90 the
refusal OF Mr.. S.untOp 10 issue elsc.ieu
csriiilca.ee:
Sheriff.
Zane. G. j..
Charles L. Stanton VS. Harvey Har.
dy.
This Ia hpbeas corpus proceeding
Instituted in this court for tue pur pose
Of Obtaining the release OF the pluiutll
rom imprisonment by the defendant
III pursuance OF q writ in his hands Us
sheriff,
All the material points relied urou
by the plaintiff for his uischar were
decided in the c ise OF Morris lar tshie
VS. Morgan Richards ct al, as WA ~.
pear from an examination Of tbs Opli.-
ION this day filed. pne application
Tor the writ is denied ana tao plaintitl
10 remenle1 TO the custody Of the
sheriff until discharged according to
law.
We concur in the result
BARTCH, ].
MINER, j.