The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-02-01


AS an illustration of this salutary
rule it has been held by the supreme
court Of Utah in the case of Young VS..
Denming, 9Th, Utah, that it is not
enough for the contestant in an cleo
ton contest to show that certain
tickets OF the party to which he be-
longed Which ought to have been count
ed were not counted, but that he must
go farther and show that his name was
on the tickets and that he was thereby
deprived of votes which should have
been counted in his favor In other
words the court in effect held that the
mere fact that a certain party ticket
was rejected authorizes no presumption
that any particular candidate Of that
party was deprived Of a vote. He must
snow that his name was on the ticket
rejected, not by remote inference, but
as a positive fact. Judged by this rule,
which we find to be the law, the con-
testant in this cause has no standing
before this body. The burden was
clearly upon him in this contest to
demonstrate to this body that legal
votes for him were rejected and not
counted; or that Illegal votes for the
contesbee were received and count
ed, and that these were sufficient to
eject him and defeat his competitor.
In the vast volume of testimony
taken III this cause there is not
ScIntilla Of evidence as to how any
particular man voted, or whether or
not the name of the contestant was on
any particular ticket rejected, ex-
cept perhaps one or two instances in
which incompetent evidence objected
10 at the time was admitted to raise a
pafe suspicion. The cause OF the con-
1esUant seems to have been one tried
on the theory that any kind of evil
dence was sufficient; that any kind Of
inference might be drawn from any
KIND OF alleged facts; and that not
WlChstandIng the utter insufficiency Of
the evidence still this honora BILE body
sitting as a judge, sworn to do right
would decide in favor of the contest
ant on general principles
AS an instance Of the weak and I'm
satisfactory character of the evidence
relied on by the contestant let US con-
slder his case as presented by the
majority of this committee in their re-
port hereon. 1t is alleged that two law
tul votes at Leht. poll No. l. and two
at Lehi poll No. ., and two at Ameri-
can Fork precinct all in Utah county,
were cast for contestant but were not
counted. That two votes were cast
at Lehi pOn No. 2 and one at Provo
Second ward for the contestee which
were not counted, leaving a difference
OF three votes rejected in favor of the
contestant which should be counted
for him in determining this contest
What are the facts? AT each of the
two polling places in Lehi and at
American Fork two Republican state
tickets were found in the wrong box
and were not counted. Those tickets
were placed in envelopes by the voter
and delivered to the presiding judge
who deposited them in the box to
which the envelope belonged. 1t is
evident the voter in each case either
made mistake or perpetrated a
fraud. If mistake, our supreme
court has held the vote should be
counted. If fraudulent, it should be
rejected. Not a line or syllable Of
testimony is offered by the contestant
to show to which class these ballots
belong. The simple fact that Republi-
can ballots are found in the wrong
box and not counted is relied upon by
the contestant in this case; and by
such evidence the majority of this com
mittee recommend him to membership
in this house. Who knows that the
persons who succeeded in getting
these ballots deposited in the wrong
box did moi also vote for the same
candidates in the proper box, and thus
accomplish the feat Of voting twice
for the same candidates? A simple
comparison of the number marked
voted" on tbs state poI list and the
number of ballots found in the state
boxes would have at least thrown
some light upon this important ques-
ton; but no such comparison was
made. at least the evidence does not
disclose It. The contestant has left
the committee in absolute darkness
upon this very simple proposition and
has allowed his case to be presented
with a reckless Indifference to funda-
mental rules which challenges our ad-
miration even if if has failed to en-
tighten our understanding as to the
rights Of the parties. The judges OF
election having rejected these ballots
it must be presumed until the contrary
is shown that the votes were illegal
and were therefore properly rejected.
We have seen that ballots found in the
wrong box ay have been placed there
by mistake or fraud with equal ia
cility. In this case the judges. after
a full and careful canvass and com
parison of lists and ballots, rejected
the votes and thereby found the votes
were Illegal. Their finding must stand
until this honorable body can deter
mine from the evidence that their find
ings We're wrong. What is here said
concerning the sIiDshod character of
the testimony, concerning ballots fornd
in the wrong box is equally apphca BILE
to the testimony concerning alleged
illegal voting.
Assuming for the sake of discussion
and we assume it for no other pur-
pose-that the vote Of Robertson, Pike.
Maeser and Cowley were illegal and
should be rejected. For whom did
they vote? The contestant assumes
that they voted for the contestee. but
where is the evidence to sustain the
assumption as to Robertson? No one
knew his politics, much less how or
for whom he voted Some witness
thought he trained with the Demo-
Gratis: one witness swore that he
claimed to be a Republican. Cowley
was simply supposed to be a Demo-
crat. There is no attempt to prove
that he voted for the contestee, or for
whom he did vote. Maeser was also
supposed to be a Democrat. Whether
he voted for the contestee, or contest
ant. or either does not appear. No
reasonable effort was made to find out.
The burden was on the contestant
throughout. If the burden had beer
on the contesuee the contestant could
not have acted with more Indifference
or unconcern as to the character of the
evidence. It is remarkable that none
of these alleged illegal voters
were sworn to testify as to
how he voted Even Pike was not
asked, although he was sworn
and testified as a witness. Such evil
dence would have been competent and.
under the circumstances. the best that
could have been obtained. At every
vital point in this case it appears as
if the contestant feared to move a step