The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-06-09

Utah will not have a capitol build
inc-at least. not until after the next
session of the Legislature. The propo'
sition TO vote a tax of one mill on the
dollar for the purpose of erecting
capitol building in this city, which was
submitted to the people of the state.
Tuesday. was ingloriously defeated.
All of the figures are not now at hand'
but there are sufficient 10 show mat
JTtabus do NOT want q capitol building
in Salt Lake at this time.
Salt Lake City may. Of course, lccl
epprieved because Of the heavy vote
cast against the proposition, both north
and south. but. at the same time. when
the lethargy of her own people rs taken
into consideration. she has but l1ttlc
eausc for complaint. II was known
from tho inception, OF the capitol con
fest. that Salt Lake City would have
to poll an exceedingly heavy affirmative
vote to carry the proposition through,
but. in the face Of this fact, all the
votes that the five wards OF the cltN
Here able TO muster only aggregated
o7sa. This is approximately only one
half of the vote cast at the bond cleo
tion held by the city on July ", l9Os'
and only little more than onc-thIrd
nf the vote that could have been poiIed
rad the people come out TO the polls.
At Outside Points.
So much for Salt Lake City. OF
conrse. il WAS expected that Ogden
would vote heavily against the propo-
sition, but the startling figures pre-
seDted from that place were not c&-
pected. Ogden s vote was "A for ana
1895 against Comment is unnecessary.
The only point in the state that eN-
ceeded the relative majority OF Ogden
AGAINST the capitol was at HuntsVllio'
.Ieo IN Weber county, where the vote
ras for the capitol aud 9s against IT.
The only towns outside of Salt Lake
rountv that gave majority Tor the
nrnnosifion were Park City and Lem.
Park City gave a vote OF 81 for and
eo against. and Lehi gave d for and
GO against.
A few results gwen at random VIII
show the feeling at other points here
arc some of the figures: Spanish forN'
yes and 137 no; Msnti Z yes and l9o
NO: American Fork, yes and lo3 no;
Morgan City. 3 yes and As no,
SANDY cast 3s votes for the propo'
x;t;or and II against it, while Bing'
ham gave A for and against.
New Law Passed Up,
The new Law. passed by the last
leaislature, requiring the JUDGES L"
make immediate returns OF the Notc 10
the county clerks, so that information
Of the results might be obtained easily
and readily and given to the public at
once. proved of little effect in this
county, for the reason that the Judges
were not instructed as TO the law.
After setting out that the Judges
shall make immediate return Of The
vote 10 the county clerk s Office, the
law saws that they shall also make out
and return, with the official vote, to
the county clerk copy of the ofilclnl
vote for public inspection, This was
not done here, for the reason That the
county clerk s Office failed TO proper
ly instruct the Judges in this matter.
The law on this matter, found IN the
second paragraph of section Of chap
ter I of the session laws Of 1909, reads
ss follows:
t'The Judges must enclose in another
envelope and direct 10 the county clerk.
city recorder or town clerk. as the
case may be, a copy of the total Num-
ber Of votes received by each candl'
date whose name is on the official bal,
Lot, the same to be placed on file in the
Office of the county clerk. city recorder
or town clerk. az the case may he, for
publc inspection.
Owing to the failure 10 instruct
Judges. returns from only eighteen dis.
tricts out of ninety eight were re-
ccived at the county clerk s Office Tues
day night, although the Office was kept
Continued on Page Two