The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-22
SUPREME COURT
AGAINST TAFT TICKET
Continued from Page One

Continued from Page One
convention. and one BY more than nye
hundred voters under the name OF the
Taft-Libcral ticket, and that oolh
nominations were duly certified 10 ana
the certificates filed with the secretary
OF state.
It is further alleged that. after the
nomination Of said electors was made oE
the certificate Of such nomination hieu
with the secretary OF state. the SAID SeTE.
Holbrook and Cohp attempted to decline
such nomination on the tart LioeraI
ticket by notifying the secretary ot stat'
or the 18th day OF October. 1908. In VIII
ing signed by them and duly ackn"Ws-
edged. In the following language"
Letter from Electors.
Having been nominated by certain
voters residing within the state of Ctah
and affilating under the political namc
OF 'Tait-Bibcral ;iclSct,' hy ccTtlhcate
OF nomination filed in your office OctoI
ber 3, 1908. for the office OF presidem,tlal ,,,I,
eiector 10 vote FOR president and vice
president OF the United States. ! hereby
notify YOU that | decline sucn hominatoT
by such voters on SAID Tart t-iH1erni
ticket. nothing herein contained, now
ever shall bc construed rs dcclinallon
Of my nomination for presidential aleG-
tor 10 vote for president and Nlce-Pres,-
dent of tho United States heretofore made
by the Utah Republican state convention
on September 10. l90S. which sHld last-
named nomination ! hereby expressly ac-
cept.'
il is further alleged that by reason OF
such notification the secretary or state
accepted such writing so nled WIN MN
a. designations OF the nominations OF said
Sevy. Holbrools and Cohu as preslpchtlai
electors on the Taft Liberal ticket. ana
that he refused 10 certify 10 the clerks
of the several counties of the state SuCh
nominations as nominees of the IaIt-
Liberal ticket and that such refusal and
threatened action OF the secretary OF
state will prevent the names OF sucn
electors from appearing on lne otDciaI
ballot under the name or tltie ot inc
Taft-I-iberal ticket. aud that the voters
who desire 10 vote for electors who VIII
support William H. Taft and James ..
Sherman FOR president and Vice president,
and who do not desire TO vote for other
candidates upon the other Republican
ticket are thereby deprived OF an easy
md reasonable opportunity TO vote Tor
such presidential electors,
Upon substantially the foregoing facts
the REALTORS pray that q writ Of mandate
Issue from this court commanding the
secretary OF state to certify TO the clerks
of the various counties of the state such
nominations OF presidential electors as
made by the voters OF the Tait-IiDcTa
! ticket. in order that the names OF such
nominees may he placed on the oficia
! ballot under the name or title OF me Iai'-
| Liberal ticket
! To the petition or affidavit so filed the
secretary OF state has demurGed on th'
| ground that the facts stated do not en-
| title the REALTORS To the relief prayed for
Upon What Question Depends.
Both parties agree that the determine
! tion OF the matter mainly depends upoI
| the question as to whether a nominee wh'
| has been nominated by two politlca
J parties for the same office. or by on'
/ political party and by voters by certlhcat'
J OF nomina ton, as here shown by the petl
tion, may. decline the nomination OF on
! without also declining the other. Tina
! the three nominees Tor presidential clec
tors have. in unm!stakable terms. de
! vote
OF the Taft-I.iberal ticket, and have no
! declined but have accepted the nomination
! made by the Republican party. Ia un
questioned What the REALTORS assert 4
that the nominees could not decline IN
one without also declining the other; tha
| a nominee. TO sffectually decline u nom
| Ination. must decline the office for whlC
| he is nominated: and, inasmuch as IN
presidential electors declined the nomina
tion made by the voters OF the Taft-Llb
| eral ticket and did not decline that mad
by the Republican party. the notiflcatio
filed by them with the secretary OF stat
Is, In effect; no declination; The ststut
on the subject, being section S33, c. /
1907. reads follows:
Whenever any person nominated "a
public office. as in this chapter provided
shall not less than twelve days befor
tho day OF election. II he shall have bee
nominated as provided in section S22, Q
not less than ten days before the day {
election. If he shall have been nominate
as provided In section s25. notify tn
officer with whom the original certifcat
OF his nomination was filed, In wrIt!n
signed by him and duly acknowledged
that he declines such nomination, TIA
same shall be void and his name shall nc
be printed upon the ballots. The office
10 whom such notification Is given sha
forthwith inform. by mail or otherwise
one or more persons whose names n,
attached to the original certificate {
nomination that such nomination has bee
| Declined
Constituting the Law.
Section s22 therein referred TO provide
; for nomination by convention or. con
mittee; section 1926, by certificate of non
ination as made by the REALTORS and thoS
who signed with them. The questic
hinges mainly on the phrase that he d,
clines such nomination, the same sha
be void and his name shall not be printc
upon the ballots" 1t is apparent thi
7 this phrase cannot be construed literal
without doing violence to the true NEAR
Ing Of the statute. That is 10 say
, cannot be said that because a person h:
been nominated for public office and n;
declined such nomination. when he
, again nominated for public office to
voted for at the same election, his nan
S cannot be printed on the ballots
For instance, suppose a. is nominal,
- for district judge In convention or by cor
: mjttee of a political party, n certifica
n OF his nomination duly filed. and nc ther
after, as by law provided, notifies q
proper officer that he declines such nor
ination. that thereafter he is nominate