Show ritA ri-tA DISTINCTION WITHOUT a DIFF DIF-F E CE i Last night the DEMOCRAT had occasion to call attention to the action of the Utah Commission in appointing Mr W WRiter i W-Riter a member of the Returning Board to canvass the election returns when Mr Biter was a candidate Two morning contemporaries come to the rescue of the Commission and Mr Riter and say that i the votes for the members of the Legislature Legis-lature are canvassed by the Commission Com-mission and that the Returning i Board only canvasses the votes for county officers Well and does I this make any difference It was said that Mr Riter was only to count the votes for county and precinct officers I but was not Mr Riters name on the same ticket as the names of candidates for county and precinct officers Or that nothing might seem amiss in the j proceedings of the Commission was a separate ticket with the name of Mr Riter alone emblazoned upon it gotten out that the canvassing of the votes for county and precinct officials might be made by the Returning Board and that Mr Riter might have a place thereon This is a question that the Commission alone could answer in the solitude of their greatness Such a proceeding was eminently emi-nently proper and the proof of this is to be found in the fact that the Utah Commission Com-mission did it and it should be remembered remem-bered that the Commission is nothing if not proper Certainly the placing of the name of Mr Riter on the Returning Board to canvass the votes cast for county and precinct officers when Mr Riter was voted for on the same ticket was right and proper because the Tribune and Herald never before agreed on any question |