The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-12-12


! the house concurred in conference CON-
/ mittee amendments" and then 1t is In
sisted that this. entry shows that the con-
currence was done on a viva voce mo-
/ ton meaning. / take if, to allege that
motion was made which was carried
4 by ? viva voce vote.
It must be remembered that, according
/ 10 parliamentary usage, motion IS, in
nearly all instances, made by some mem
! Der OF the house TO put bill upon its
! final passage; and this without any re-
gard To the manner in which the vote is
/ taken; so that because the Journal shows
! hat motion was made to pass the bill
/ upon its final reading, or TO concur IN
/ amendments, is by no means PROOF that
I the vote was not taken by yea and nay
! This much in passing
OBJECTION TO THE TITLE.
A further objection is made to this act
/ that IL does not conform 10 the require
ment of the constitution, which PROVIDES
at section %, article G, that mo bills
shall be passed containing more than
one subject, which shall be clearly eX-
pressed in its title" Just how the act
fails to conform 10 this requirement we
are LETT to conjecture, for ;he petition
does not state; but this may be dismissed
with the remark that there is nothing IN
See case Carter county VS.. Stinton, 120
L. S. ST. where ii is held, "a constitu-
tional provision thar a statute shall re
! late to one subject only, which shall be
expressed in The title, Is substantially
/
general object and that object is fairly
expressed in the title [ apprehend 1t
can hardly be said that the act in oues-
tion has more than one general object
and that that object is not fairly eX-
pressed in the title.
The petition proceeds to attack another
act entitled An act in relation 10 elsc-
tons, defining offenses against the same
and prescribing pun-shments therefor,
and designated as chapter So OF the acts
OF 1896. and found at pages 1S3 to I'll OF
I the printed laws.
The drst ground OF attack upon this
sta tute is that the constitution requires
that election shall be by secret ballot
and that this law required every ballot
that was voted TO be marked by num-
Der. and that the number, though COW
cred by paper pasted over it with mucil-
age, could be seen through the paper II
held up 10 the light. in the first place,
it S probably sufficient TO say Of this Oh
lection that the constitutional require
u-elt 3 for the benefit of the voter ana
d privilege of his, and l apprehend that
il he do not Object no one else can OBJ
ject for him. / doubt if any casecan be
found or viii be found where an election
was ever set aside on any Such ground
Besides all which, the ballot provided Tor
by the act IN question was and is secret
bahot. No man has known or can know
how any other man voted without vio-
lating the law and Subjecting himself to
criminal penalties, unless upon legal
contest before u court of competent juris-
diction the ballot is exposed in obedience
to an order OF such court. | oDine that
the real objection of the petitioner 10 the
ballot 5 not that ii was not cast secretly,
but that he is annoyed by shortage N
tho public count that took place after the
ballots were cast.
THE DEMOCRATIC ROOSTER.
A further objection is made that there
was an emblem upon the ballot by which
tie voter could make a cross ana mus
be compelled TO vote a ticket that was
choice because there
other system by which he could cast his
vote. The petitioner in this case can con-
soo himself that the emblem upon the
ballot Of which he complains has Tor
nearly a century past proved himself 10
be a bird Of no small annoyance TO others
greater than he; and that in the comm
centuries the slogan will go ringing Gown
the incline of time, Just put your mark
up by the rooster and let il go at that
But the real object of this bill is not
d!ssimilar TO that made to the other one
mentioned in the petition and may be
best stated in. the language OF the petit
ten itself: IL is az follows:
Petitioner further shows that the said
last named pretended act found on the
pages aforesaid was never legally en-
acted by the two houses OF the iegis-
lature OF Utah, namely the senate and
house of representatives. and never be
came a Law of said state for the follow
ing reasons: A bill with the same tide
was introduced in the senate, and is
known as senate bill -; after being con-
sidered. II passed the said senate in the
us;-2l manner by the yea and nay vote,
and also passed the house; il was pre-
serted to the governor OF the state OF
Utah for his signature; that the governor
did not approve the said bill and did not
sign 1t, buJ returned the said bill. with
his objections. TO the house in which il
originated, to-Wit, the senate OF the
state of Utah. and in the said message
returning said bill. the said governor
made sundry suggestions or amendments
which were adopted, and the sad bill
changed or amended in the particulars
specified by the said governor. Thai
after said changes were made. and
amendments adopted containing the
amendments not heretofore in said
bill. the said bill then passed the
senate by a yea and nay vote and
was forwarded TO the house of represent
tat-Ves of said state. but that said house
of representatives did not pass the said
bill ny a yea and nay vote, nor did said
bill pass said house Of representatives by
Z vote of two-Ihlrds of the members
thereof or by any other number at al,
but instead the vote upon the said bill
and said amendments was not taken by q
yea and nay vote but the said house
simply concurred in the senate amend
merits which had been made and the
same as suggested by the governor, by
viva vcce vote, the entry OF the Journal
OF the house being at page 5SI on mo
ton the house concurred in the senate
amendments 10 senate bill No. % That
in no other manner was said bill at
ter1pted to be passed or enacted into law.
and for that said failure of jurisdiction
This petitioner alleges that the said Aus
tralian ballot law or said bill as printed
in the statute never became the law of
the state of Utah.
The court will see that ii is here a.
legged that the act passed both houses
of the legislature in due and proper form
and was sent to the governor for his
action thereon. Tt is then stated That the
governor did not approve and sign the
bill hut returned il TO the house in which
ii originated; and that in his message
made sundry suggestions as to amend
u1ents which were adopted by the house,
and then duly passed by such liouse-the
senate-and in its amended form sent TO
The house of reprSen tatiYeS for its action.
Ii is then stated that the bill did not
pass this house by yea and nay vote, nor
by a vote of two-thirds of the members
thereof. or by any other number at al,
but a vote was taken upon motion iva
Journal is quoted as follows: on motion
the house concurred in the senate amend
menis to senate bill No. y.
While ii IS not stated that the governor
vetoed the bill II is stated that the biz
did not pass a two-thirds vote and from
vey the idea that his action was ecuivs-
lent 10 a veto: but I hardly think srch
position viii be insisted upon here.
With reference to the deduction sorght
TO be drawn from this general eitry,
namely that no yea and nay vote was
taken. the same remarks VII apply that
were made concerning the other act.
II NAV be further said that the 'cgisia-
ture Is a coordinate department of the
government and every intendman IS to
be INDUCED in favor OF IT'S right actica.
More vii! be said upon Il: : ilbjeci here
after. but II may not lie ont II pace
10 reDeat that the journal entry does
not negative yea and nay vote If it were