The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-10-20
CAN CANDIDATES
PICK COMP ANY
Question of Political ASSocia.
ton viii Be Decided by
Supreme Court.
IF OFF ONE, OFF ALL?
ARGUMENTS IN MANDAMUs MAT
TER CONSUME MANY HOURS.

At 10 o'clock this morning. II is IN,
derstood, therI viii be a decision h.
the supreme court as TO whether tn
candidates for electors on the Penuh
lican ticket will also have To stick d,
the Taft Liberal. The thing IRA,
threshed out yesterday in the supreme
court, and the arguments did not
cease until away and beyond o.cIo-,-
last evening.
The proposition is that the Rapub-
lican nominees, Thomas Sew. T.sfs,.
cite HOlbrook and Henry Cohn. VoDI5
not stand for an Endorsement" by The
Taft-Liberal party and filed with he
secretary Of state a withdrawal NJ
their names. This the secretary Of
suite accepted and let il be known
that he was not certifying the names
officially. A writ of mandamus was
issued Saturday compelling the secrs.
tary 70 show cause why the names
should not appear. The state demur-
red, and yesterday the argument on
the return of the writ took place
The electors who wanted to withdraw
were represented by Z. B. Critchlo.y
and E. A Walton. and the electors
who wanted TO stay were represented
by Senator George Sutherland and 7.
c. Edwards. Chief Justice w NJ Nc
Carly being disqualified. Judge J. A.
Booth of Provo, was called in. Jus
tees Frick and Straup were present.
MIR. critchIow's Argument.
Mr.. Critchlow argued that the names
of the candidates should go on the
by request of their constituents. and
he contended that no man could say
by what partisan vote he would be
elected. Therefore, If he was the car
didate of one body of voters. he could
not decline to receive the votes OF any
ether; in that way. Mr.. Critchlow
argued, the declination of the candi-
dates was not really declinatiOn az
all
Mr.. Critchlow maintained that a
man could not refuse the nomination
of any class, the anarchists. for exam
pie. because, said Mr.. Critchlow, he
does not know what his constituents
want him to do.
In reply to a question by Justice
Frick. Mr. Critchlow said that anarcn-
lists had the right TO nominate any
candidate on any other ticket If they
saw fit TO 90 so, and the candidate
couldn't help himself.
There was a long dissertation On
CritchIow- contended that no candidate
could decline a nomination on one
ticket and remain on others Parry
he declared, were not En-
titled TO preference over nominations
made in any other way. Mr.. Critch-
low said that it did not make any
how many nominations a
candidate got. he had to take them
ell OF none.
To Simplify Ballot.
Senator Sutherland made a plea for
the simple ballot. He said that all
of the decisions he had been able 10
find inclined toward keeping the limit
Of the number Of tickets on the bal
lot down to the minimum He argued
that the candidates nominated by con-
have the preference. for. he
pointed out, those who so are noml-
mated have twelve days in which %
resign. while those who are nomi-
mated by petition have only ten"
Senator Sutherland denied that the
case of the resignation of Watson in
Kansas was a parallel. for. said he.
Watson did not decline to be a can
didate. but did not like his position
on the ticket Senator Sutherland
agreed with Mr.. Critchlow that can
didate could not say who could or
could not cast their vote for him, but
he did adhere to the doctrine that
candidate did not have to stand for
being tagged with a party or ass0-
citation or men that or who were OBJ
noxious to him. In effect. he said that
it was robbing a citizen Of his hrst
agency to be deprived of the right OF
declination If he were nominated bT
persons without his consent or against
his will.
The arguments of Messrs. Walton
and Edwards closed the session
HOMEGROWN Flowers; No Delays.