The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-10-22

az the same election no one would scrr
ously contend that because he declined
the nomination OF district judge his name
shall not be printed on the official oalIot
ns the nominee OF the party nominating
him for Justice Of the supreme court. It.
however. may be said that such illustra-
ton pertains TO different public offices
quite true Nevertheless such instance
Illustrates that the statute cannot receive
literal construction without destroying
Its true meaning.
suppositious Case,
But suppose again that ~" should bc
nominated for state auditor on the Ec- |
publican ticket and on the siStIctb day !
before the election (that being the EARL /
est day ON which a certificate may be !
hled) a certificate of his nomination Is |
filed with tho proper officer; that on the !
next day ~ filed a proper notice de- \
clining such nominations: that the day !
after and on the hfticth day before the
election he is duly and regularly nom
mated by the Democratic party for the |
same office 10 be voted for at the same |
election and certificate OF such nnmna- !
ton duly and regularly nled- which nom
lnatiou Is accepted by "A" can it bC
contcndcd that because he declined the
first nomination his name cannot be
cratic nominee for the office of state
auditor? Yet. If the statute is TO receive
a mere literal construction, such result
would inevitably follow
But 90 so construc the statute would
be inconsistent with the very spirit Of II.
and would lead 10 the conclusion that II
person is nominated for public Office
and declines such nomination. he cannot
thereafter be nominated for the same Of
| flee to be voted for at the game election
| by any other political party. or by
group of voters by certificate OF nonina-
| ton
| II cannot he said in the instance stated
| thet by "A's" accepting the nomination
on the Democratic ticket he thereby re-
nouuces his decllnarion OF his nomination
| by the Republican party. and that there
| fore his name must he placed on both
/ tickets. Tor the Republican committee.
/ after his dccinatton, may have nlled the
vacancy on the ticket by substituting the
name az another. as they lawfully had the
! right TO DO.
o. The Other View.
! il. on the other hand. ~" having been
regularly nominated by the Republican
party and certificate OF such nomina
tion properly fled and such nomination
Ia not declined by him the right To have
his name printed on tho ballots has be
come fixed and established. and no sub
sequent action taken by another party or
group OF voters destroy modify
that right. That Is TO say, the Repu6-
lican party having. In convention. duly
nominated the said Sevy, Bolbrook and
Cohn rs presidential electors, and GER
tihcate OF their nomination having been
duly filed, and such nomination not de-
clined but accepted by them, the relator5
in effect assert that they must also ac-
cept nomination made by them, else
decline ALL and get off the ticket Such
a construction gives to group of voters
the power 10 impose condition under
! which n nominee regularly nominated on
another ticket may have his name appear
on tho printed ballots, That Is. IL gives
them the power to assert that unless the
nominee accepts the particular nomina-
} tion which Is rendered by them he can
accept no nomination and cannot have
his name appear on the printed ballots
; notwithstanding his nomination regularly
made. and a certificate thereof fllcd. by
, another political party.
What Statute Contemplates.
The statute contemplates that each po'
litcal party which presented candidate:
at the last preceding election has Tho
right TO make nominations for puoic OF
fees not that some one else may DO J.
for them: that when 1t has made sucl
, nominations and filed a certificate thereo
; as by law provided, IL has the right q
: have the names OF such nominees placed
! on the official ballot under the part!
: name or tide OF such party, regardless o
subsequent action taken by some othe
party or group of voters.
c As appears by the petition that whe;
n the voters OF the Taft-GIberal ticket nom
e mated the three elecors, such nomina
c ton was wholly separate and distinct
made mad by the Republican party. n tn
= nomination which the voters OF the Taft
. Liberal ticket made could In no manne
e affect the nomination which was mad
r action taken by the nominees in decllnin
( the nomination which was made by tn
q voters OF the Taft-Liberal ticket could Il
Q no manner affect the nomination made D
c the Republican party. In so far as az
6 fecting such a status, II would be IN
|. same as though the voters OF the Taft
c Liberal ticket had nominated three, per
It sons other than the Republican nominees
r But 1t is said that when person ha
II been nominated for public office and de
:. clIpes such nomination, he must also de
c cline the office. That Is, IL Is asserte
II that the declination OF the nominate
II necessarily implies a declination Of tn
office as we'll. That would be true S
far as the matter applies 10 the par
ticular nomination which Is declined. ~
/ that the terms public ofice in the sec
= tlon OF the statute in question is cor
10 sidered to be the primary Thing theI
n expressed, and that the ,declination pre-
;, vided for primarily pertains TO public o
Il iice and that the term nomination use
d by the statute is but secondary: TT
II statute pertains TO declination of non
y nations That is. IT is the nomnatio
i that Is declined rather than that publ
it office Is declined one ordinarily. ca
Us only properly decline something which M
Is been rendered him. person nom!nate
Is for public office Is rendered only non
"a inatlon FOR public office. lie is not the
ie rendered n public office. When. ther
fore he declines he declines the nomin;
I'd tlon Such seems to be the meaning
l. the statute under consideration where
te IL is provided that when person non
p mated for public office notifies the prop
lie officer that he declines such nomih,
ID the nomination which he declines is vol
not that some other nomination which
does not decline is also void.
Answering an Argument.
The argument made that unless u
names of these presidential electors a
not placed on the official ballot under q
title OF tine Taft-Liberal ticket well
under the party name or title OF the r
publican party. voters who arc desire
OF voting for electors who win vote Z
William H. Taft for president and Jan,
s Sherman for vice president, and "
are not desrous of voting for other ca
didates on the Republican ticket. are n
given easy and reasonable opportunl
Of so doing is well answered by Mr.. in
tlce Grant In the case OF Todd VS.. Ele
ton Commissioners, reported in 10i Mic
479. The legislature has amply provid
easy and convenient means whereby a
voter may vote for presidential electo
. or for any other candidate, on any ticlt
and vote for candidates for other offic
on other tickets. Both the opportunl
and the facility to so vote are ann
afforded. But &c is said that the vote
OF the Taf,-L!beral ticket are entitled
have all the names of the nominees
whom they desirous of voting plac
on one ticket In order that they may yc
q straight ticket. The statute gives
group OF voters the right to make noI
inations for public office the same a.
given to political parties. But the III