OCR Text |
Show J- CHARGE FRAUD VOTES Gunnison Became "Dry" in 1915; Appeal Is Made as to Legality. V '" init Jlrt whether (liinnbon rcali'k 1 ' ' or ''dry'' legally must f tlirc."l. vr0L1K n the lower court J of Sanjx t. Tty aain, according to lii" dcci.-uoL 'led down yesterday by t lii- supremo oV't Utah, in the case of "Mareuus HeVeganrd, contestant and a iiell;i)i t, agai nsr, ( i mini son city, cou- Ir! ees and res pond en t S. Iii the L-K'i-1 i(n of dune "JO, l!)15t to determine v.'hct tier Gu unison should Vie wet nr dry I'nr the following two year?, the utc resulted in a tie. Those interested inter-ested in La ving the town ' 4 wet ' ' in-hi in-hi it ut ed proceedings against t ho city ;i 1 1 1 lion t irH, on the grnuud hnt illegal -ite-j v.erc cast and contended that if I 1 im sc votes were excluded tho town would remain ' ' wet. ' ' The trial in the district court resulted in findings and "judgment affirming the ehvt inn held. Tho plaintiff then tip-t tip-t 1e;iird. The principal contention of the con- i tenant is that certain persons had voted 1 illegu My because they were not quali-i quali-i ied electors of the voting district in whicli they hail cast their ballots. The witnesses all refused to answer respecting respect-ing their residence, upon the ground tii ut in answering they might incriminate incrimi-nate t hem -selves and disclose the fact that they had voted illegally, and thus w ould be subject to prosecution and I punishment under the statutes. Witnesses Immune. The plaintiff 's counsel insisted that this claim was without merit, and that even though the witnesses had voted illegally, they nevertheless would bo im-nriidC im-nriidC ivm prosecution and punishment. The court r.uled in favor of the witnesses, wit-nesses, and ordered the closing of the saloons. The supreme coiiTt insists that the witnesses were not or trial, that they t would have had immunity under the .-matutes, and that the prime duty of tho courts in election contests is to in-sure in-sure the purity of the ballot without reference to tfie technical rights of individuals. in-dividuals. Justice J. E. Frick, who is joined by hip associates in the decision, ordered a ''gw trial. In making this order the iprome court in conclusion states its ' lustre to set forth the fact that it is jotvJminriful of the contention that ' To arts shoHd not, except for Ood rea-1 rea-1 sons, sot aside., popular elections, and that the voter's right to refuse to disclose dis-close how he voted and to make other i disclosures should be carefully guarded and fully protected. Should Give Facts. Continuing, the court says: A. voter whose acts may be called in question is, however, not the only nerson to be considered; nor is he ! tho only one to be protected. It is quite enough that a voter who may have been guilty of some infraction of our elect ion laws is fully absolved ab-solved from prosecution and punishment. punish-ment. When that is the case thero is absolutely no reason why he should not be required to disclose all matters concerning anv acta or conduct on bis part, or ot another, that my affect the result of the election. ' A result that is obtained by crim-L crim-L jnnl misconduct or fraud should not V Wi upheld in any court of justice. Neither can it be assumed that the V tivople either approve of or desire a j ""ITnlt thus obtained. In 1 the long I n,, our free institutions and popu-' popu-' Jnrwmments will suffer much leys by giniting complete immuni-tv immuni-tv to an offender against our election elec-tion Jaws, and by requiring him to make full disclosure of all he knows concerning any criminal misconduct, miscon-duct, fraud or collusion, by which a fair and honest result of an election elec-tion is attempted to be frustrated whero he is not being prosecuted for such offense then can be gained bv shielding the wrong-doer upon tfie "round that no one may be required re-quired to give self-incriminating evidence. The evidence no longer nan be- said to be incriminating since 1 it has lost all its force and effect , for that purpose. As a mere pro-1 pro-1 phylactic effect the former course 1 has many advantages over the I latter. |