The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-10-22
COURT SUSTAINS
CONTENTION Of
TAFT ELECTORS
Withdrawal From Taft-LiberaI
Ticket Is Upheld by Su-
preme Tribunal.
VIEW is EXPRESSED
IN ORAL OPINION
MAY ACCEPT PLACE ON ONE
TICKET AND DECLINE
1T ON ANOTHER.

So far as the Taft-Liberal ticket is
concerned, it will have to make its
way the best it can through the trying
times of election without the help or
the hindrance as the viewpoint may
be- of the presence at the head OF it Of
the Republican electors.
That is the ruling of the supreme
court.
The supreme court yesterday made its
ruling in the somewhat noted matter
of the mandamus proceedings brought
by the Taft-Liberals to compel Secre-
tary Of State c. S. Tingey to put the
names of the three Republican electors
on the ballot under the name and des
ignation of Taft-Liberal, when the Re
publican nominees had already with
drawn. declined or resigned. whichever
word one may choose. The demurrer
of the state was sustained.
Ruling, Not Opinion.
The supreme court made its ruling
orally. II is not 10 be regarded as an
opinion, as that term is usually under
stood. because the supreme court did
not have time 10 study the matter care
fully and make research such as its inn
Dortance demands: but the supreme
court promises, at some future time, to
which all of the points brought up in
the controversy viii be elucidated.
The ruling WAS made by Justice
Straup. acting as chief justice in the
absence of Chief Justice McCarty, who
was disqualified from participation in
the proceedings. The ruling was con-
CURED in by Associate Justice Prick
and Judge ]. A. Booth of Provo, who
was called in to complete the courts
membership.
! Time Was Brief.
| At the beginning. Justice Straup
made preliminary remark or two,
aging:
In considering the question involved
/ in this case we have only had sufficient
/ time tx enable us I'm arriving at con-
clusion: we have not had sufficient time
! to express our views and to state our
/ reasons for the conclusions reached by
Us, in writing. What We now say is 2
mere oral opinion in order to indicate
/ to counsel the point or points upon
which the ruling made by us is based.
Some time in the future we shall pre-
pare and file a written opinion wherein
will be more fully expressed our views,
and wherein our reasons for the ruling
will be more fully stated"
Some of the Points.
The supreme court reviews the ques-
ton in detail, and then declares that
the statute bearing on the point cannot
BE- construed literally when it says that
because a person declines q nomination
at one time or another on any particu-
lar ticket or for any particular office he
may not have his name appear on the
ballot. The court finds that this is not
the true meaning of the statute. but
that the true meaning is that he may
have his name printed on the ballot,
sobeit he is regularly nominated by
convention, authorized committee or pc
tition OF voters, and that because he
declines one nomination he does not
another.
The court furthermore is OF the opin-
ion that if the REALTORS contention pre-
vailed, it would have the effect of i'm
posing a condition on the candidate.
which is thing never contemplated by
the statute
The REALTORS say the nominations are
separate and distinct II that be true,
the court says, in effect, the decIina-
tions OF the nominees 10 accept the
Taft-Liberal nomination could not af-
feet the Republican party: and, on the
same line. If they should have declined
TO run on the Republican ticket II
could not have affected the Taft-Lib-
eral.
Office and Nomination.
There is a vast difference between
nomination for office and Office Itself.
according TO the views of the supreme
court, for the court says that one ordi-
nariIy can only properly decline some
thing which has been rendered him. A
person nominated for public Office is
rendered only a nomination for public
Office. He is not rendered the public
Office. When. therefore. he declines the
nomination il is particular nomins-
ton which he declines. and that the
statute means that that particular
nomination is void. not some other
nomination which he does not decline
Neither does a candidate decline an
office when he declines nomination
The court did not refer to the Wat
son case in Kansas, and makes refer
ence to only one citation, that of A
Michigan case. wherein the question
was decided that there was ample OPP
pOrtunity for a voter to exercise his
franchise without the presence of the