Show OF A how the election decision leaves things 0 THE DEMOCRATS WILL APPEAL claim that they are unable to tell what their duties are under tho the decision finding gp discussed by dy counsel costs taxed against tho the republicans john iff zanes opinion of the opinion the attorneys for both sides in tile the contested election cases spent yesterday in ascertaining the present status of 0 their respective c clients while the main point at issue concern concerning fri the authority 0 of tile the utah commissioners to so go be heo atine nand the returns was clearly and plainly decided against the democrats a number or of incidental questions have been raised which tend to confuse the legal mind roalnd as to the tha full scope of the decision although the court has granted the wilt of 0 mandate directing the utah commissioners to issue of c election to the san pete bandl candidates izates on the face of the rc returns turns and the democratic members of tile the have promised ir in court to issue such bertill cates a decided disposition Is now manifested to evade if possible able the performance of this duty various I 1 qui quibbles tiles boles over the bartell bartch decision have I 1 been raised by which they seek to make it appear mot they a are unable to dez determine emine just what their duties it ar under this decision and it Is given out that hat they propose to appeal the tae chee to lie supreme court the position lakeit by the democratic members of the commission CommiE Slon Is understood to be this that the court lias has ruled that they have no authority auchoi ity in law to lo canvass the returns from the I 1 judges of election iut but on only y to canvass I 1 general abstracts abstract sent ill up by a canvassing cani calli I 1 hoard board but that it ras has granted I 1 a writ or of mandate erd prins ri ang them to I 1 issue certificates of election on the canvass vass of the returns from the judges of election it 1 they obey the writ of mandate they alif he be doing what the co court rt las has ruled to be illegal it if they disobey the writ they will place the mi selves in contempt of court under this pretense of ignorance as to their duty under the bartch decision the comm commissioners Issi oneri will appeal to the supreme court arid and it Is intimated that in the event that judge bartch Is sustained boards of canvassers will he be appointed for each county and tho the returns and ballot boxes turned over to them the republican attorneys contend that having virtually confessed judge judg clinent in open court ahr democrats tt alkhal ait at tx han aan pete r ws ibos and to abide by the decision in the san pete case as to the weber and box elder case they aro are also barred from an appeal in those cases DISCUSSED THE FINDINGS the attorneys met before judge bartch in chambers yesterday afternoon to discuss the findings as submitted by counsel tor for the petitioners petition ers but no agreement was reached and a ee ond conference will be had bad the rin findings dings submitted by the republicans public ans were in substance as follows the findings submitted in the mandamus case find that the election was regularly hem held returns honestly malc made that here e were no discrepancies therein affecting the election that the plaintiff was voted for and received a majority ot 01 otes cast ca it that the utah commission canvassed canvas wl sea the returns but after demand made refused to issue the certin certificate cate ot lection alc tlc atlon the findings in the prohibition case add alie additional fact that forgeries had been made on oil certain returns in order orde r to create discrepancies and ana anat t the boxes baxes had not been been properly kept as required by law WRIT OF prohibition during the argument judge bartchy hs action in denying the writ of prohibition was vas again referred to and judge zane vane asked his bis honor upon what ground lie he held that the writ did not lie judge bartell bartch stated that lie he so held because the respondents had already gone into the boxes and further because they had agreed in open court to issue certificates to the petitioners petition ers but what about the e costs s is said judge zane wo we made out such a good case that they conceded it but under your honors ruling the costs are thrown upon us ir williams william suggested that the bringing of tile prohibition cases was i useless abc lass proc procedure edere and that the costs 1 follow the ruling of t the he court I 1 judge zane declared d that the taxing of the costs in the prohibition cases against the petitioners petition ers was unfair as they had all been incurred at the time lime that the concession was made in it court by the respondents au ats to that replied judge bartell bartch 1 I oil era only say that in deciding a case the would not consider the matter it t KOBIS but would let them follow I 1 the bittis 11 |