The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-23
THE DECISION LACKING.

The Supreme Court OF Utah, in de-
ciding the case OF the resignation Of the
Republican electors from the Ameri
can Taft ticket appeared TO take the
| view all through that the electors
! were officers. 1t is by no means
apparent, however, that this is the cor.
/ rect view. The electors do not succeed
any one in Office; they are inducted
into no Office, and. we believe, do not
necessarily take any oath of office. They
are simply a part OF the machinery for
the election Of the President. They
stand in a higher degree, TO be sure,
and on the basis Of the Federal Cousti-
tuition in place Of local statutes, as one
of the election processes. They are not
quite similar TO the judges of election
or the boards Of canvassers, but they
are nevertheless step in the election
machinery Just the same. All are
steps or processes through which the
election is cousummated; but as to the
electors, they simply have the one func
ton TO perform. They meet, cast their
three votes, according to the popular
result, as indicated, certify their action,
designate a messenger 10 take their vote
TO Washington, aud the moment that
they do this their function ceases.
They are not in the enjoyment of any
emoluments Of Office; they do not have
any continued function or office, but
merely a passing activity in formally
concentrating tho election Of Presi.
dent. As such they are mere agencies
of the people, and there is strong
pertincnce in the suggestion made by
u distinguished member of the bar
through The Tribune yesterday morn.
ing, that as such agents they are not
at liberty TO designate as between those
who may vote for them and who shall
not. They represent the Taft interests
in this State, and as such representa-.
tives or agents they are bound 10 con.
serve the interests Of their candidate,
without regard to whence the support
for that candidate may come.
The Supreme Court, however. took
quite another view OF the relation OF the
electors to the voters. 1t considered the
electors as incumbents in some Office for
which they were to be voted They
are not so. however, in the sense of
being officers with a term of office,
emoluments pertaining thereto and gen.
eral duties to perform. They have
tduciary relation TO the voters merely.
one to carry into effect technically and
officially the will of those voters.
though legally and technically free to
vote for any person they choose. As
such iiduciary agencies they do not
stand in the same relation 10 the public
that an officer or an official does.
Their service is limited, their act is re-
stricrcd TO one specific thing well de-
fined and not repeated. They can do
one thing, and one thing only; and that
thing is simply to take the final step
in the election of President and Vice.
President.
The more the question is discussed,
the moro evident it is that the court did
not consider the matter fully. and that
an opinion much stronger than that
by the court might have been
written on the other side OF the ques.
ton. However, it is probably idle to
discuss this matter any further The !
question Is settled so far as Utah is con. !,
cernedr for the present year, at least !
it is settled right or not, and 1
whether in the long run it is a wise and I
proper decision, time alone can tell.
In the meantime it is well to consider
the reasons urged by the Smootites for |
The decision rs rendered. According to .
the Smoot ''Moutb - the Utah Supreme !
Court decided the case as il did in order |
TO show that ''it could not be bullicd |
by Tom Kearns." There IS n reason |
for you. But suppose some zealot on |
the other side should say that the court !
decided as it did in order TO show that ,
1t is still wearing the Smoot woke. /
Would not that be az good reason and
as fair one as that OF tho
Mouth7' And in reply TO the CORY |
headline, ''Kearns rebuked by the Su.
preme Court" counter might fairly !
be, ''Smoot praised by the Supreme
Court
The true way TO treat the decision. i
however, is not through gbes and par
tisan filings. The decision was, Of course
4 part of the Smootite campaign i,
Utah, and is to be accepted as a politi
,al decision, just as court decisions
'f ike character have been rendered