The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-20

When the case was cdlieu, peu"boi
! George Sutherland, acting for Seavy,
| Holbrook and Cohn and the church,
J fled n general demurrer 10 the com
| plaiut, alleging that the facts did not
| Justify the relief asked for. Argument
! followed
Sole Question Before Court.
l.. r. Critchlow appeared for the
: plaintiffs. He maintained that the sole
! question before the court Is as TO
, whether the document above set forth
! has any force or effect, or affords any
| Justification for the threatened action of
| the secretary. He contcndcd that by
the terms OF section $50 the nomina-
tions as shown upon the certificates be-
came final and therefore that thereafter
no objection or protest could be enter
taincd rs a basis for changes I'm tho
ticket
He also maintained that the docu-
ment filed October u by the candidates
was not declaration or resignation
contemplated by section S33 or the Re
vised Statutes of Utah, hence no OIL
cial action could be taken thereon by
the secretary OF state In proof OF TINS
contention he declared that as evidence
that the candidate did not intend to
decline absolutely the nomination Tor
the office, the wording of the letter
was conclusive. viz. g hereby notlfy
YOU that I decline such nomination by
/
ct - He held therefore that this was not
n dcclination of the nomination, but
declInatiou of the assistance oil
certain number or body of the electors.
thing not recognized by statute nc
cited Paine on Elections, section 25S,
aud declared that the court must re,
gard tho letter in question as II polticai
document, intended TO have some efteGt
other than upon the official duties "f
the secretary of state. There could oe'
he maintained, no conditional accept
ancc of office.
Must Accept All CT None.
"Tbe idea said Mr.. CrJtchlov,
''that a candidate may decline noml'
nation certified In one manner or upon
one ticket while declining il as certified
in some other manner, is founded upon
the notion that candidacy for office Is
in some manner severable between var.
ious Lartics or groups OF citizens, 10
one o. more of which the c.nGldatc may
attach himself repudiating the sui
irapes of others. II is claimed that the
wording of section S33 permits the can
didate TO decline one nomination while
accepting another for the same office.
We do not SO read the statute. Inc
wording (omitting unnecessary parts)
is:
Whenever any person nominated for
public office (by either party. con
vention or petition of voters, or both)
''shall notify the officer with whom tho
original certificate of his nomination
was filed that he declines such nomlna"
ton. the same Il. e, the nomination)
shall be void and his name shall not be
printed upon the ballots.
It follows, therefore, that since the
electorate has the general and superior
right to select its officers, and not
only patriotism but the laws Of tho land
require candidate TO accept the Of
flee, the right to resign or decline
nomination made under the provisions
Of law, which nomination has become
final as IN this case, must be exercised
strictly in accordance with the terms of
the statute. Any doubt lu reference
thereto will be resolved in favor of
the people.
The construction contended for by
the defendant would tend to defeat the
will Of the people, by rendering 1t dlf-
ficult for them TO express their prefer
frauds.
In The course of his argument, Mr..
Critchlow said "that all that we were
asking was the opportunity of voting
the straight ticket and OF voting for
the Taft and Sherman electors upon
equally favorable terms with other cltl-
zens who are not in favor Of the Amer
lean local ticket; that the effort on the
part Of the Republican central commit.
tee is evidently to take advantage Of
the supposed preference for Taft and
Sherman and the fear of voters of IN
validating the ticket by scratching, SO
as TO compel them 10 vote the straight
Republican ticket,
The court here suggested that Ameri.
cans who wished to vote for Taft and
/ Il l,>-g ipl Al he
ticket, whcreupon Mr.. Critchlow said
'that the Americans felt themselves as
much entitled TO the advantages of Il
straight ticket as any other class in the
community, and that If they were de
barred the privilege of voting the Taft
Liberal ticket, with Holbrook, Seavy
and Cohn as electors, they would un-
doubtcdly fill the vacancy with three
electors Of their choice and let the re-
| sponsibility for the defeat of Taft rest
upon those who had devised and were
insisting upon this political trickcry. -
Mr.. Critchlow cited many authorities
TO sustain his contentious. He was ques-
toned several times by members of the
court. His argument was most force
| ful one,
Sutherland for Defense.
Senator Sutherland followed Mr..
Critchlow, and spoke in behalf of the
/ questioned several times by members of
! the court, Senator Sutherland cited
many authorities to sustain the conteu-
tion Of the defense
Il. a. Walton, who spoke for the
plaintiffs, declared that the letter of
the electors should not have been con-
, sidered. as 1t did not change their status
] as candidates IN any way. He main
/ tained that the nominations were col
/ lcchve, and that therefore there could
not be any resignation from one nomi-
nation without n resignation from all.
/ His argument was clear statement OF
/ fact and was Il convincing one.
q, Mr.. Crltchlow in concluding for the
! plaintiffs declared that the kernel in
I the whole situation was the construc-
tion of the words 'such'' and "nomi-
nation in the statute, and that il
meant that tho nominee mnst stand for
the nomination in its entirety: that the
nominee must decline or accept the
nominations in their entirety. No nomi-
nee could decline the Endorsement OF