Show I THE COMMISSION VINDIOATnD I I The decision of the Supreme Court of Utah in the Sanpete election case does not seem to be fully understobd by a food many people The text of the Opinion delivered by Justice Smith the conclusions of which if not all the reasoning were concurred In by the other Justices will be found in this Issue of The Herald The mandamus Is sustained the prohibition pro-hibition Is denied This was what Judge Bartch at first decided but subsequently subse-quently went back on his own ruling But the main question in the controversy contro-versy has been the powers of the Utah Commission in canvassing re turns of members of the Legislative Assembly and delegates to the Constitutional Consti-tutional Convention In that respect the Supreme Court entirely reverses I the decision of Judge Bartch I The court holds that the returns from the judgesof election in such cases are to be sent to the Utah Commission direct di-rect Judge Bartch held that the Commission Com-mission should appoint an intermediate board of canvassers to take the place of the county clerk and members of the county court and the returns should then jbe certified up to the Commission Com-mission The Supreme Court says of the Utah Commission They possess the same power that the county clerk and members mem-bers of the county court formerly possessed pos-sessed Judge Bartch denied that the Commission held any such power The Supreme Court decides that the Utah Commission have power to go to the ballot boxes and make a recount when there are irregularities or discrepancies dis-crepancies in the returns sufficient to affect the result of the election as to any candidate but that in the case of the applicant for the mandamus there were not discrepancies sufficient to affect af-fect the result to him and therefore the mandamus will issue requiring the certificate to be issued on the face of the returns Judge Bartch decided that the Commission had no power to go into the ballot boxes under any circumstances cir-cumstances The court decides that there is no necessity for the writ of prohibition the costs of that case then which was the expensive part of the proceedings will fall on the applicants for the writ Judge Bartch after reversing himself granted the writ and so tried to put the costs on the Commission We mention these differences between be-tween the two decisions that people who claim Judge Bartch was sustained by the higher court may see how much they and he are mistaken The principle prin-ciple Involved has been decided emphatically em-phatically in favor of the Commission and against the rulings of Judge Bartch The position taken by The Herald as to the powers of the Utah Commission is fully sustained by the Supreme Court The question as to the sufficiency suffi-ciency of the discrepancies In the San pete returns to warrant a recount of the ballots is another matter The court decides that they were insufficient insuffi-cient but that if they had been great enough to affect the result to the candidate can-didate the ballots could and should have been recounted It will be seen by a careful reading of the opinion that Judge Bartch John aL Zane and the Salt Lake Tribune were all egregiously wrong on this question but that the second person I in that peculiar trinity was further I off that the other twain He played I the role of the prophet and announced impudently what the Supreme Court would decide and his pragmatic prognostication prog-nostication was a flat failure The court decided that the certificate must issue on the face of the returns As the majority of the Commission had already announced their determination determin-ation to issue the Sanpete certificates on the face of the returns the courts decision I de-cision is a victory for them And the I expenseand trouble and bad feeling of all this litigation might have been abided if the proposition of the Democratic Dem-ocratic Commissioners in the beginning had been carried out The board would have gone to Sanpete investigated Investi-gated the whole matter on the spot and the certificates would have been Issued to the persons elected without further ado Let it be understood that all the delay de-lay in the settlement of the convention question has been occasioned by Republican Re-publican obstruction It was worked up for partisan effect It was designed to put the Democratic part of the Commission in a false position before the public The issue shows that they were right in their construction of the powers conferred upon them by law and they are to be congratulated on the vindication which they have received re-ceived in this Supreme Court decision |