Show THAT ELECTION LAW the opinion of county attorney whittemore published in tuesdays NEWS presents a rather peculiar situation prom irom several points of view none or of which are particularly gratifying to the cause of its if coming forth in it mr whittemore says the election law of this thin mate to ie invalid but the abe county commissioners must count tile the votes and certify to the results thereof in ID other words he be says that the subject of the validity of the election law jaw lit in no BO business of the county canvassing board and that they should hould perform their duty lode audo pendent of its to tala teace and this latter view eo fare far ai the can boards board Is action to concerned concer eone ernea neo la Is just juat right fight even if the attorney be ae wrong on an the validity proposition and in the burden of the abe remainder of his reply in looking over the matt matter erit to is quite clear lear that one of two condition exist namely father either the county CAD have been extremely foolish in asking the attorney for hip bin opinion upon a law which did not affolt them in that capacity and therefore was waa none of their business or the county attorney has shown himself foolish in obtruding upon the he canvassers an opinion ou a statute regarding which no inquiry was made or of him so bo tar far as the documentary evide nob la 18 con cod vernea the resolution of the ibe canvas sing board and the reply of the attorney the canvassers may properly have made the inquiry they bey did as aa toabe to the law jaw under which they were acting but it was when the attorney opened his bla mouth that a big foot gut goi luto it tola tais situation Is ig made plain when it la Is known that the county canvassing board aota acts under chapter 76 75 of 09 the laws of utah 1896 and that alone while the county attorney says that chapter 69 with which the can have bare iio nothing thing to do is in his opinion invalid the ludicrous aspect of the thing ought to induce somebody to engage the services of a making kicking machine right away As a canvassing board the commissioner had a right to inquire about chapter 76 75 chapter 69 was none of their affairs but so tar fair as the resolution of inquiry is concerned the be attorney bad no more business to give an opinion antho on the validity of chapter 69 than he hod had to tell about the workings of the astray law A wise public adviser would have saved himself much deserved criticism by answering the question oo asked instead of trying to give tangible form to gossip on OB another issue so bo far as the canvass of the returns to is concerned abe be county commissioners have nothing to do with the particular form dimensions or contests contents of the ballots used those ballots never reach them and officially they know ot whether they constitute a secret evoret ballot or not the county canvassers must take the returns of the judges of election consisting of the tally sheets anil and some other papers but not the ball ballots otal and must certify to the effect thereof there la is oo no room for contest on that matter upon any ground yet suggested eug and the lotima tion ot of tue county attorney that the board might be prevented by a court of competent jurisdiction from issuing the certificate ban no DO foundation on which to hope that such action will be taken the issue of election certify oates without delay is next in order I 1 As to a contest over the results of an election interested partite parties always are justified therein when there Is good reason to believe that the will of the voters has been defeated but in toe the recent election there Is nothing of that bind claimed secret or open ballot the electors ot of this his county and state ave expressed their will in emphatic terms and in due time the offices should be turned over to the officers selected else has a rifet thereto anu ana no contest seeking on a supposed technicality to subvert the dillof will of the people will receive public approval now as an to the opinion of county attorney whittemore on the validity of the election he owye it was vold void because there was not a secret ballot how does he be determine that because the ibe ballots wore were numbered to curree corree pond with ane poll lists but how bow can cad a ballot so numbered numo ered anu and the number covered so au that it shall not be visible vial ble reveal lat W the elector has boteo the opinion does not tell because it cannot it if the number dumber be invisible as this the law requires the ballot so numbered Is ia aj ad perfectly veiled from scrutiny as if it were blank so the numbering has nothing to do with the secrecy of the ballot I 1 it has been urged that the number ean can be seen through gb J on exposing the ballot to the light and then aben a comparison between poll list and ballot would tell how a person has voted but such a comparison would be beam as unlawful as a it if a judge addge of election were to open the ballot when it is tendered by the voter to see what it conta contains inq and after the judges make their count the ballots are not within reach for aoh such comparison but it if the ballots can be through as aa alleged then somebody somis loody has haa violated the law in iii not providing paper with which the number her can refolded be folded derand un pasted down so ao BB as to be not thereafter visible via lole 9 pas as the be expressly provides pr ovidea or 18 it is because a court ORD oan break the seal goal in a contest the effect of that would be that in case OB there were a question as aa to the votes cast there being too many in the box the court could determine where the fraud was waa it if there were no two ballots numbered the same then the court would throw out the excess numbers and there here would be no 9 loa to how bow aay y individual voted the court would oot not allow the gratification of f such auch unlawful inquisitiveness but if there were two ballots ballato num burn bared the same and differently marked who could tell which was wai the lawful ballot only the fferson who cat cast it and lu that case atleas it la aa cooley says in the he quotation by the county attorney the veil of secrecy la is impenetrable unless the tb voter himself voluntarily determines to litt it bin bia ballot to absolutely ledged it does doea appear esir then that much fuse has baa been made where there here la in no occasion forit no doubt the election laws of the state are susceptible of improvement if so the legislature probably will give them hem the needed attention but the recent proceedings to throw doubt on them in such trivial manner as aa has baa been attempted cannot receive the approval of an enlightened public sentiment |