\ Ps Pind a ‘ ; oy Yay Waly The Position of George 0. Cannon, to whom z h 4 » the Seat was Awarded. rq aa EG, SALT LAK CITY | Deseret News Company,’ Prinvers. Ep: ORNS Hg te Hatt 1881. Peete i RAMU: 1 Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue books. University of Illinois Library L161—H41 ae wae Tn UELEGATE f wet POSITION OF GEORGE’ O. CANNON TO WHOM THE SEAT WAS AWARDED. Mm REPLY TO A PAMPHLET ISSUED IN BEHADE OF A.’ GG.’ CAMPBELL, IN THE fall and early winter of 1880 it was rymored and whispered around Salt Lake City,that whatever the result of the count of actual votes cast at the election for delegate, Ir. Allen G. Campbell would be declared elected, and would be foisted, by some mysterious means, into Congress as the delegate representing Utah, although it soon became well known he had received but 1,357 votes, to 18,568 votes cast for Mr. Geo. Q. Cannon. When events are foretold with accuracy, and immediately we see them take place as foretold, itis but fair to presume that there was some sub- stantial reason for the prophecy. In this case it is apparent by what has since transpired, that long prior to the election of 1880, there was a widely organized conspiracy in Salt Lake to force upon the people of Utah, as their representative and delegate in Congress, a person whom they did not want, would not have, and who received a less vote than any minority can- didate that ever aspired to that position from Utah. It mattered little to these conspirators that this result could only be compassed by the grossest frauds and outrages upon the rights of a free people to choose their own delegate. It mattered nothing that the plan could be carried out only by violation of every principle of representative government wherever con- ducted; that it insulted the theory upon which every political party that has ever governed this country has acted. The end was cetermined, ard the means were within the ready invention of the instigators. Let us 1ecite the steps taken: GC po eres UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Class ; Book Pyare) cc aoe Ja 09-20M [Ht DELEGATE s bette POSITION OF GEORGE’ QO. CANNON, FO WHOM THE SEAT WAS AWARDED. Meme PLY TO A PAMPHLET ISSUED IN BEHAEE OM Ay Gy CAMPBELIT, IN THE fall and early winter of 1880 it was rymored and whispered around Salt Lake City,that whatever the result of the count of actual votes cast at the election for delegate, Mr. Allen G. Campbell would be declared elected, and would be foisted, by some mysterious means, into Congress as the delegate representing Utah, although it soon became well known he had received but 1,357 votes, to 18,568 votes cast for Mr. Geo. Q. Cannon. When events are foretold with accuracy, and immediately we see them take place as foretold, it is but fair to presume that there was some sub- stantial reason for the prophecy. In this case it is apparent by what has since transpired, that long prior to the election of 1880, there was a widely organized conspiracy in Salt Lake to force upon the people of Utah, as their representative and delegate in Congress, a person whom they did not -want, would not have, and who received a less vote than any minority can- didate that ever aspired to that position from Utah. It mattered little to these conspirators that this result could only be compassed by the grossest frauds and outrages upon the rights of a free people to choose their own delegate. It mattered nothing that the plan could be carried out only by violation of every principle of representative government wherever con- ducted; that it insulted the theory upon which every political party that has ever governed this country has acted. The end was cetermined, ard the means were within the ready invention of the instigators. Let us recite the steps taken: | GC +o Kage a es ae \ 5 : ee id 2 ae ee 0° ° e e ee ° or 8 CT °, © » ee e Ctn Wediediytnth iy of September 1880, while the Supreme Court of Utah was.inesessioniba Hehig on of mandamus was presented, nominally on the yelatisa, of, “Gedme R. Maxwell, by Sutherland & McBride, his attorneys, pr dying shat. Rebert T. Burin the assessor and registrar of voters for Setltshak & County, strike from ihe registry lists the names of all women chéfe listed" a The object of this proceeding was to annul the woman sufirage law of Utah, as a preparatory step to the future proceedings in the conspiracy. George R. Maxweil, the relator, was a prominent attorney of the Salt Lake bar, had himself been a contestant in Congress for the office of dele- gate from Utah, yet he did not appear or argue the cause, but the whole matter was left in the hands of Sutherland & McBride, who, by a strange coincidence, appear now and all through the case as the managers of the cause of Allen G. Campbell. This matter of the appearance of attorneys is one of the little items pointing to the real manipulators of the scheme. To this petition for mandamus the defendant demurred, and the pro- ceeding failed. The election came on—a great effort was made to rally votes for Camp- bell, but the counting of the vote disclosed that he had only received the paltry vote of 1,357 out of a total of about 20,000. Never was a flatter result from the effort made. This vote showed that he had no backing whatever from any substantial party in the Territory of Utah. The repub- lican vote alone was greatly in excess of thatamount. The Gentile demo- cratic vote was probably more than Campbell secured. The next scene in the drama of conspiracy introduces the remarkable document called ‘‘Campbell’s Protest,” printed in the decision of Governor Murray, as a part of it, and found in the Appendix. The protest says that, calculated by previous elections, there were 40,000 voters in the Territory at the time of election, that the 1,357 for Campbell must be presumed legal, and the 18,568 for Cannon illegal! Why are we to presume 18,000 votes illegal? Any proof of it? Notin the least. Itis all presumption, and on such a frivolous presumptions alone Campbell’s case rests. The argument in the protest concedes over 20,000 legal voters, but for the purpose of making his case the draftsman of the protest infers and asks the Governor to presume that all legal voters stayed at home except 1,357, and the other votes were illegal. To this remarkable protest an answer was filed (also found in the Appen- dix, and made a part thereof,) more through respect to the office of Gov- ernor, than to the merits of the protest. On the 7th of January, 1881, the Governor went through the form of hearing counsel, or persons appearing as counsel for the respective candi- dates as if he was a court, and had power to receive evidence, weigh | \) | ; > a testimony, and render judgment. That he never had any power to do either, is apparent from the slightest consideration of the nature and duties of his office,‘and of the Statutes of the United States and of the Territory—a mere ministerial executive officer, having no power to send for witnesses or papers, and who avd not send for either, and “eard no evidence, undertook to set aside the order of a court 6f general} jurisdiction, naturalizing a citizen, and at the same time annul the election returns giving a majority of over 17,000. Never was a greater outrage attempted, and never was anything called a “hearing,” a greater farce. That Murray had determined what he would do long before the election, is proven by the prophecies of it by his friends, and the prompt fulfilment by himself. It is notorious, that in this whole transaction, he has been governed by Sutherland & McBride, whose tool he was, and whose bidding he did. After the hearing, Governor Murray prepared a remarkable statement— or opinion. By what name it should be called, it is difficult to determtne. It was a declaration of the vote, a recital of the protest and answer, with his Opinions and conclusions on the questions involved. Mr. Campbell did not see fit to print it in his pamphlets although it was, without doubt, dictated and written by his counsel and backers. Why did he not print it? Is he ashamed of it? or rather are they—the conspir- ators ashamed of it? It was recorded at length in the office of the Secre- tary of the Territory; a copy of it is with the Clerk of the House of Representatives. It is added to the appendix of this article. It states the actual vote each candidate received correctly, and thus truly and really certifies to the election of the person securing the greatest number of votes, and that person was George Q. Cannon. This is the language: ‘*7y%e returns show George Q. Cannon recetved 18,565 votes, and Allen G. Campbell received 1,337 vates.” See appendix. This is over the signature of Governor Murray, and under the Seal of the Territory. No stronger certificate of Cannon’s election could be made. The Governor then proceeds to decide judicially that Cannon is not a citizen, and therefore he gives what he calls his certificate to Campbell But the paper he gave Campbell, was anything but the certificate required by Act of Congress. The law says: “The person having the greatest number of votes, shall be declared by the Governor, duly elected, and a certificate shall be given accordingly.” —U. S. Revised Strtutes, Sec. 1862. Governor Murray could not truthfully and did not dare certify that Campbell was the person who received the greatest number of votes cast. He changes the certificate so that instead of ‘‘the person who received the greatest number of votes,” it reads “The person being a citizen of the United States who received,” etc. A most ingenious device for the Gov- ernor sworn to execute the laws of the Territory. Had he made the certificate in the usual form, the gallant Governor would have been subject 4 to a prosecution for felony. The law of Utah has a statute as follows: ‘‘Any person who shall falsely make any return, or ‘falsely make any cer- tificate of election returns ” * * ad shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding two years.” —Utah Statutes of 1878, p. 36° The Governor sent to execute the law, would figure ‘strangely as a criminal for violating them. And yet the intent was to have it believed that he was certifying that Campbell had received the greatest number of votes, while his cowardice did not permit him to come within the letter of the law, and so be liable to a criminal prosecution. He would avoid the statute for making false returns, and, at the same time, make it appear to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and, perhaps the House itself, that he is duly certifying Campbell’s election, when in truth, he certifies to nothing material. The certificate to Campbell, defective as it was, was not sent forth alone; the opinion was added, and thus in effect, there were two certificates, one certifying Cannon secured the greatest number of votes, and the other, that Campbell was the person deznug a citizen of the United States, who received the greatest number, both signed by the Governor, both sealed with the Territorial Seal. Both certificates were presented to Adams, Clerk of the House of Representatives. He was forced to discriminate and decide upon which to act. It was his duty to prepare the enrollment for the next House. Hecould put but one name from Utah. Evidence that Cannon was a citizen was produced before him, and Murray’s certificate that he received the greatest number of votes. It was apparent there was but one true course in deciding upon the two ccrtificates, and that was to award the seat to Cannon who had been elected, and who held the certificate, and was entitled to his seat, which Clerk Adams did, and Cannon now occupies and holds the position. Great was the indignation of the conspirators when they learned that their petty device had not succeded in deceiving the Clerk, and robbing a great Territory of its sole representation, At page 3, of Campbell’s pamphlet, he complains that ‘‘Cannon made application without any notice to Campbell to have his name placed on the roll, and secretly, after an ex parte hearing, the Clerk enrolled Cannon as delegate.” It is not true that it was without notice or secretly done. In Cannon’s notice of contest, he distinctly, in most explicit language, gave Campbell notice that he would contest his right to be enrolled. Mark the language (Appendix): ‘I have the honor to notify you that I shall contest your right “¢ “¢ = either to be sworn or ENROLLED, or hold a certificate as such delegate.” With what truth does Campbell say he had no notice, when here is the ° 5 most formal one, in the most formal document connected with the contest? That notice isfdated January 20, ’81, and was served, and Campbell’s answer put in, long before the action of Mr. Adams. Where and when could Mr. Cannon contest the right of Mr. Campbell to be “‘exrodled,” ex- cept at the time of the enrollment, before the enrolling officer—the Clerk? Neither is it true that the Clerk acted secretly—there is no pretence that either Campbell, or his attorney, or any one for him, éither sought to be present, or applied to the Clerk to know when he could hear them or where, or indicated their intention to appear. The only claim in Camp- bell’s circular is that on the tenth day of February, McBride and Willets (M. C. from Michigan), went to the Clerk, and the certificate was given him. Afterwards, at some indefinite time not stated, Campbell asked Adams if he was going to put his name on the roll. Adams said if he (Campbell) “shad a certificate, his name would appear on the roll.” Mani- festly this conversation was before Adams had examined any certificates, or knew the nature of the contest before him. When Adams examined the certificates, and found that Campbell’s was insufficient, and that it appeared by the certificate of the Governor that Cannon had been elected, then the case was changed, and the seat was awarded to the person elected. The duty of the Clerk is stated in Sec. 31, Revised Statutes, as fol- lows: “SEc. 31.—Before the first meeting of each Congress the Clerk of the next preceding House of Representatives shall make a roll of the Repre- sentatives-elect, and place thereon the names of those persons, and of such persons only, whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws of - the United States.” The documents that Murray had prepared clearly stated that Cannon was the ferson “regularly elected,” and that Campbell was not elected. It is not true that Cannon was awarded a secret hearing; in truth he had no hearing before Adams at all, but appeared and submitted the certificate which stated he received the greatest number of votes, and the Clerk refused to hear him in any argument, because the other party had not seen fit to appear. What is the effect of Adams’ action? The seat has been awarded to Cannon by reason of Murray’s certificate. Campbell knew well the state- ments in and form of those papers. He filed no notice of contest. The law of Congress says (Revised Statutes, Sec. 105): ‘*Whenever any per- son intends to contest an election of any member of the House of Repre- sentatives of the United States, he shall, within thirty days after the result of such election shall have been determined by the officer or board of can- vassers authorized by law to determine the same, give notice, in writing, to the member whose seat he designs to contest, of his intention to contest 6 the same, and, in such notice, shall specify ‘particularly the grounds upon which he relies in the contest.” Campbell knew. within thirty days, that Cannon was elected; he knew that Murray had decided and filed his decision that Cannon received 18,568 votes to 1,357 for Campbell; and yet he permits the thirty days to pass by and files no notice of contest. He has failed to file any even now> at the meeting of Congress. By the act of Congress he is barred and pro- hibited from making any contest, or questioning the election of Cannon. Cannon, then, is the Delegate from Utah, unquestioned and uncontested. Nor will it aid Campbell’s case that Cannon did file a notice of contest. As Murray had, in effect, given two certificates, and the thirty days would expire before any enrollment could be made, and what action might be taken between conflicting certificates could not be ‘foreseen, Cannon took the precaution to contest the declaration that Campbell had been elected. He has succeeded in the first part of the notice—the enrollment—and the further prosecution of the contest is immaterial. The citizenship of Cannon is denied in the circular of Campbell and in the canvass of Murray. This question is not new. Mr. Cannon was elected to the Forty-fourth Congress, R. N. Baskin was the rival candidate, received a large vote, and contested the seat. All the testimony now pro- duced and sworn to was then laid before the comnittee of Congress. Jabez G. Sutherland, now of the counsel for Camptell, then took testi- mony as counsel for Cannon. The committee was composed of an unusually able array of lawyers. Mr. Baskin was, himself, an able and prominent lawyer; he appeared personally before the committee, and made an elaborate and thorough argu- ment reviewing the whole case. The committee carefully examined and con- sidered the case, decided and reported that Cannon was a citizen, and entitled to be a member of the House. This would seem to be an effectual and final disposition of the whole matter. But Campbell’s circular again reviews and imitates the arguments of Mr. Baskin. Cannon came to the United States before he was eighteen, and remained until after he was twenty-one; afterwards, he went on a mission for the ‘‘“Mormon” church, and immediately after his return in 1854—sixteen years after he first came to this country, he was naturalized. These facts were stated to the United States District Court, as one of the witnesses still living narrates. (See testimony of Elias Smith.) That court decided that Cannon was entitled to be naturalized. ‘The decision was correct. Where had been Cannon’s /owz all these years? The object of his absence—to make converts to the ‘‘Mormon” Church at Salt Lake; the place he went to—the Sandwich Islands; the ties that bound him to Salt Lake, all prove beyond question, that he considered the latter place his home, and intended to make it such, That after he had once actually removed and | lived here, his home could be established here has been abundantly decided. The authorities were so fully reviewed on this branch of the subject by Chas. A. Eldredge, in his brief before the committee of the Forty-fourth Congress, that we take the liberty to use his language, as follows: “Tt is a fact of history and tradition of that people, known to all who know anything of them, that every intelligent man amongst them is a minister of their religion, under its canons liable to be and is at some time sent abroad as missionary and agent, to recruit for their church and popu- lation. This has been at all times the great source of wealth, growth, and extension of that prosperous, peculiar, and wonderfnl people. This mis- sionary agency has been really a part of their system, and continues to be evento this day. It was in this work Mr. Cannon was engaged, and through his and his fellow-missionaries’ influence and labora large number were induced to leave the Sandwich Islands and settle in Utah. His labor was to get followers of his faith and doctrine to make their homes in that Terrirory—not tomake a home for himself in the Sandwich Islands. It will indeed be a matter of news to him and his people, if not a surprise, that whoever goes out on this duty loses his own home and residence among his own people; thatin recruiting for settlers and citizens he throws off his own citizenship, and becomes himself a stranger and alien in his own land. Sucha doctrine is no less sirange than horrible; that in the act of going out to persuade others to join them and make their homes and residences with them, he who goes expatriates himself and abandons his own country and home, But we will not pursue this subject further. The law is not so unreasonable and absurd. ‘The court,in adjudging the naturalization to Mr. Cannon, rightfully held otherwise. Residence once made and acquired, is not abandoned without zztention of abandonment. It remains till another is zztentzonally acquired. Residence is the term used in the naturalization laws, and it was vesedence which the court adju- dicated in the granting naturalization to Mr. Cannou. ‘*Thecourt gave to the term veszded its ordinary and accepted meaning. To reside in a particular place one or five years does not necessarily require the person to remain fixed and stationery in the locality during all the period of time. Having established the residence, he may go and come at his pleasure, and the place remain his residence. This has been determined legislatively as well as ‘judicially. The naturalization act of 1802 required vesedence in the United States for the ‘continued term of five years next preceding his admission.’ This act was construed by the courts and the term given its common and ordinary definition and meaning. In 1813, Congress thought wise to confine the applicant within the United States all the time during the entire sive years. On the 3d of March of that year, an act was passed amending the previous law by adding to it, o o ‘Without being at any time during the five years out of the territory of the United States. This amendment was given by the courts the most narrow and strict construction. One court in the State of New York”held that a person who, during the five years, while traveling on a steamboat which touched at a Canadian port, went out upon the dock for only a few minutes, was not entitled to naturalization. This act, thus construed, was looked upon as illiberal and unwise, calculated to hinder and deter emigration, and Congress, by an act approved June 26, 1848, amended the law by repealing the words, ‘Without being at any time during the said five years out of the territory of the United States.’ Thus it now stands, leaving the term ves7- dence and its meaning and effect to be determined according to its ordinary acceptation by the courts administering the law. The legislative construc- tion would seem to be clear that the law does not, and that it was not the intention to confine the person contemplating naturalization during the five years to the territory of the United States. Heis only to bea resident thereof. ‘We do not suppose it is questioned or doubted thnt Mr. Cannon aciually acguzred a residence in the United States and the Territory of Utah, within the meaning of the xatwralization laws, previous to his being sent a missionary to the Sandwich Islands. He had been in Nauvoo, Illinois, and Salt Lake seven or eight years, and left his family at the latter place when he went upon his mission. The place was, therefore, and remained his residence, unless he abandoned it for another. There is no pretence that he went or intended to go to any other place than the Sand- wich Islands. The place of residence once acquired remains in law and in fact his residence till another is selected. The only question then which the court had to adjudicate on the application for naturalization was whether, when he went from Salt Lake to the Safidwich Islands, he became a resident there; whether he gave up Utah and took up his resi- dence where he went. Upon this all the authorities agree, and as far as I have been able to examine, without an exception, that it depends upon the intention with which he left Utah and took up his abodezin the Sandwich Islands. Wtihin the meaning of the. naturalization laws, there is little difference between residence and domicil; both depend upon and are determined by the zz¢evtzon. It may be that a residence may be had in a place where the party has no domicil, but che cntention is the controlling consideration in the establishment of either. ; ‘““McCrary’s Election Law, p. 35 3. 39 to 41. Story in his work on Conflict of Laws‘ % 43, page 39, commenting on Vattel’s definition of domicil, wherein he defined it to be ‘a fixed residence zn any place, with intention of always staying there, says: ‘This 7s not an accurate statement. That place ts properly the domicil of a person in which his habitation is fixed, without auy present intenteon of removing 9 therefrom.’ Story further remarks: ‘The definition of the word domzc7l is, however, not without difficulty, and in alate case it was observed by Dr. Lushington that, although so many powerful minds had been applied to this question, there is no universally-agreed definition of the term; no agreed enumeration of the ingredients which constitute domicil; the gra- dation from residence to domicil consists both of czrcumstances and inten. tion.’ And at 2 44, page 40: ‘Two things must concer to constitute domicil; first, veszdence; and, secondly, zztextzon of making it the pos of the party. Zhere must Ge the fact and the intent. - However, actual residence is not indispensable to retain a domicil after itis once acquired; but it is retained azimo solo by the mere intention not to change it or to adopt another.’ “eT f, therefore, a person leaves his home for temporary purposes, but with an intention to return to it, this change of place is not in law a change of domicil.’ “Phillimore, in his Law of Domicil, p. 71, says: ‘There must be both animus et factum, this is the result of all the cases. That a domicil once acquired remains until another is acquired, or that acquired first aban- doned. I admit all that has been said, that length of time ts not important; one day will be sufficient, provided the anzmus exists; if a person goes from one country to another with intention of remaining, that is sufficient; whatever time he may have lived there is not enough unless there be an intention of remaining. Again, at page 98: ‘It may be taken as a gen- eral maxim of European and American law, that every person swz jurzs is at liberty to choose his domicil, and to change it according to his inclina- tion.’ Again, Philimore, p. 146, speaking of American dicta, says: ‘In questions on this subject, the chzef portnt to be considered is the azzmus manendai, and courts are to devise such reasonable rules of evidence as may establish ¢he fact of intention. If it appear that the intention of removing was to make a permanent settlement, or for an indefinite time, the right of domicil is acquired by a residence of a few days.’ Every man is viewed by the law of nations as a member of the society in which he is found. Residence is prima facze evidence of national character; suscep- tible, however, at all times of explanation. If it be for a sfecial purpose, and transient in its nature, z¢ shall not destroy the original or prior national character; but if it be taken up auzmus manendi, then it becomes a dom- icil, superadding to the original or prior character the rights and privileges as well as the disabilities and penalties of a citizen or subject of the country in which the residence is established.’ “Again, page 148: ‘It has been said by some civilians that when the person retained the intention of returning to his former domicil, a ¢housand years would not suffice to establish a new one? “Page 149: ‘No particular time is required; but when the two circum- 2 | Ze) stances of actual residence and intentional residence concur, then it is that a change of domicil is effected.’ “It is seen, therefore, that removal from one place to another merely does not make the latter place the residence; nor the intention to remove and remain there does not constitute it the residence. Both must concur. Neither can create the residence without the other. ‘Mr. Story, in his work on Conflict of Laws, 3? 44, says: -‘However, in many cases, actual residence is not indispensable to retain a domicil, after it is once acquired; but it is retained, azo solo, by the mere inten- tion not to change it or adopt another. If, therefore, a person leaves his home for temporary purposes, but with an intention to return to it, this change of place is not in law a change of domicil. Thus, if a person should go on a voyage to sea, or to a foreign country, for health or for pleasure, or for business of a temporary nature, with an intention to return, such transitory residence would not constitute a ew domzcil, or amount to an abandonment of the old one; for it is not the mere act of inhabitancy in a place which makes it the domicil, but it is the fact coupled with the inten- tion of remaining azzmo manendi.’ ‘Mr. Secretary Marcy, in his letter in Koszta’s case, says: ‘The authorities already referred to show that to lose a domicil when once ob- tained the domiciled person must leave the country of his residence with the intention to abandon that residence, and must acquire a domicil in another.’ ‘‘Gardner’s Institutes, page 454. ‘It seems to us, admitting every fact that may be contended for, the court, upon the authorities already cited, could not have decided otherwise than that Mr. Cannon had resided in the United States and in Utah as recited in his certificate of naturalization. Every fact now appearing tends to that conclusion. Mr. Cannon was, while in the Sandwich Islands, a mere sojourner. His calling and pursuit were temporary—he neither gained nor sought a residence there. Hereturned as soon as his calling ended. Every presumption upon the facts is against his having aban- doned his residence in Utah to permanently cast his lot in with the bar- barian inhabitants of those Islands. The courts have always held the pre- sumption strongly against the intention of domicil in such cases, with such peoples. ‘Lord Stowell was inclined to the opinion that a Christian would not acquire a domicilin a Mahometan country. His language was: ‘I give no opinion whether a British subject can or cannot acquire a Turkish dom- icil; but this I must say, 7 chink every presumption ts against the intention of a British Christian subject voluntarily becoming domiciled in the dominion of the Porte.’ ‘‘Phillimore, page 157. II “Tt would, it seems to us, require very strong circumstantial’ proof to satisfy any court that a man of Mr. Cannon’s intelligence, cultivation and learning, intended, in the very morning of his life, at the age of twenty-two years, to abandon the beautiful and picturesque valley of Salt Lake, the home of his young manhood and early adoption of himself and family, and all the bright prospects that were opening up before his young ambitions of becoming a leading man among his people, for a home, residence, society and life with the ignorant, debased and heathen natives of the Sandwich Islands. ‘Love of adventure, Christian faith and duty may be supposed to lead men of education and cultivated taste to sacrifice every other pleasure and for a time devote themselves to religious labor in such fields, but it would be a great tax upon our credulity to believe men of sound mind would do it for all time.” The action of the Court admitting Cannon, is attested by two docu- ments: 1. Itis foundina book in the office of the Supreme Court of Utah, originally a book of blanks, but at the page in question, filled up in the handwriting of and signed by one W. I. Appleby, who was then clerk both of the District and Supreme Court. The fact that the clerk was clerk of both courts explains how the book came to be among the Supreme Court records; it would be an easy and natural occurence, when the office came to be divided and a different clerk provided for each court, for the books, which theretofore had been kept by one man, to become confused and get into the wrong office, especially as the Supreme Court sometimes admitted persons to citizenship, and the records of such admission were in the same book with the records of the District Court, the clerk of both courts not thinking it unnecessary to keep separate books for each. The fact that this naturalization does not appear on the journal, but in a separate book, is explained by the order (Exhibit ‘“B’’), directing the Marshal to procure “a book with blanks printed for record- ing declarations and naturalizations for the use of the court.” This order was made January 18, 1854, and the blank book was purchased in 1851, and therefore, Campbell’s pamphlet says this could not have been the book ordered. Why not? Could it not be possible and is it not probable that the clerk originally obtained this book for convenience merely; that for the pupose of making a legal record, the above order was made? The making the order constituted it a record of the Court. The order was made months before the naturalization of Cannon. But Campbell’s article argues that this cannot be a record belonging to the office, because it is only certified by the clerk who keptit.. Who else should authenticate it? Is it the business of the judge to write his name on the flyleaf to authen- ticate a record? Noone heretofore ever heard of such a duty; neither is this the work of a “subordinate” ass uggested by Campbell’s pamphlet, p. 12 7. The clerk of the court is not a “‘subordinate,” he is a distinctive branch and officer of the ‘‘court;” itis part of his duty and office to keep the records of the court; to procure and designate the various books and journals in which the proceedings of the court are recorded. This order from the court, directing a book to be prepared for naturalizations dispensed with the necessity of the presiding judge signing each day’s proceedings. If the clerk signed the proceedings, it was sufficient. No question is made as to the signature of the clerk. It is proven to be his own handwriting. He died long since, and could not have prepared this book for this occa- sion. On this subject we call the attention of the language of Judge Blatchford, /7z Re Coleman, 15 Blatchford 428: “Tt is urged, by the attorney for the United States, that there is nothing to show that the book labelled on the back ‘Naturalization Index,’ and found in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court, was ever regarded by that court as a record, or that that court even knew of its existence; that itis as much a private, unofficial book as the note paper in the clerk’s desk is private, unofficial paper; that there is nothing to show when the entries in it were made, nor by whom they were made; that, for all that appears to the contrary, they were made up from the affidavits alone, some time after the time when the affidavits purport to have been made; that it does not appear that the book was kept even by the authority or direction of the clerk of the court; and that it may have been made up by, and have been the property of, some deputy who used it as an aid in making searches. There is no evidence tending to show that what is thus conjectured has any foundation in fact. It was open to the United States to show, that the ‘Naturalization Index’ was not regarded by the Superior Court as a record, or that its existence was unknown to the court, or that it was a private, unofficial book, or that the book was not kept by the authority or direction of the clerk of the court, or that it was the property of some deputy. The record in the present case contains a certificate signed by the present clerk of the Superior Court, and attested by the seal of that Court, certifying that the copy, before set forth, of the entry in regard to Coleman, in such ‘Naturalization Index,’ ‘is a true extract from the record of naturalizations of this court, remaining in my office, to date,” which date is November 22d, 1878. When a certificate of the clerk of a court, under its seal, certi- fying that a book is a ‘record of naturalizations’ of the court, is presented and accepted as evidence of the existence in the book, of the original entry of which a copy is annexed to the certificate, and no evidence is produced that the signature of the clerk is forged, or that the seal is not an impres- sion from the true seal, or that the book has no existence, or that the entry is notin it, and when it appears that the book is in the office of the clerk of the court, and has on it and in it marks designating it as the property of the court, and as containing transactions of the court, and the entry in ques- 13 tion in it corresponds with the contents of papers on file in the office of the clerk of the court, which papers purport to be genuine, anc the genuine- ness of which is not impeached, and which purport to have been filed on the day when the particular transaction took place, it is a proper legal con- clusion, that the court regarded the book as one of its records, and knew of its existence, and that it is not a private, unofficial book, and that it was kept by the authority and direction of the court and of its clerk, and that it was not the property of some deputy. So, too, itis a proper legal con- clusion, on the same evidence, that the entry in the book was made ata proper time and by proper authority.” 2. Cannon has other and higher evidence of the action of court admitting him to be a citizen than this book; he has the certificate of naturalization itself, under the seal of the court, in the handwriting of the clerk. (See depositions of Snow, Cummings, Smith and Exhibit Z.) No attempt is made to show that this certificate is not under the genuine seal of the court, in the genuine handwriting of the clerk, and duly issued to Cannon. This alone is complete proof of citizenship. If the clerk and judge, or all the officers of court failed to do their duty in recording, or entirely failed to record naturalizations of citizenship, it would not deprive a single person to whom the privilege of citizenship had been given of the rights acquired thereby. Congress, by a general law, has granted the gift of citizenship to all foreigners who will comply with the terms of the grant; the court simply can determine whether the applicant fills the measure; when the court has heard the evidence, decided the fact, and pronounced the judgment declar- ing the applicant a citizen; no power short of revolution can deprive him of that franchise, or take from him any of the rights and privileges of any other citizen of the United States. If the judge or clerk fail to make any sign or mark whatever, the man is stilla citizen. He has complied with the conditions of the gift on his part, and it is the fault of others if the records of his rights areincomplete. On the subject Judge Blatchford says: ‘It is hardly to be supposed that Congress intended to make the appli- cant for citizenship responsible for a non-compliance with any other conditions than such as he had the power to comply with. The appli- cant can declare his intention, and can take the prescribed oath and make the renunciation. But he cannot see to it that the proceedings and renun- ciation are recorded. He can produce a witness to his residence and char- acter, and can appear in person in the proper court, and be sworn there in open court, with his witness, as to the matters prescribed in the statute. When this is done, he can do nothing more except to receive such a certi- ficate from the court as that which Coleman received from the court—a cer~ tificate which sets forth that it is given ‘by the court,’ under its seal; that Coleman appeared in court on a day named, and applied to it to become a 14 citizen, and produced to it such evidence, and made such declaration and renunciation, and took such oaths, as are required by the acts of Congress on the subject; and that, thereupon, the court ordered that he be admitted, and he was accordingly admitted, by the court, to be a citizen of the United States. When he has done what the certificate says he has done, and when he leaves with the clerk of the court such papers as he has signed, and when the court tells him, as it does by the certificate, that, he having done all that, the court had thereupon ordered that he be admitted to be a citizen, and had admitted him to be a citizen, and when the court gives the certificate into his keeping, he has done all he can to comply with the statute. It cannot be held that the word ‘conditions’ applies to anything further. There must, undoubtedly, be an act of admission, but what shall be the evidence, directed by the court, of such act of admission, is another question. The provision for recording ‘proceedings,’ at the close of the second condition, and the provision for recording the renunciation men- tioned in the fourth condition, are introduced in such form that they may very well be regarded as merely directory, and as no part of the ‘condi- tions.’ The conditions are well satisfied by limiting them to what the appli- cant is required to do, in the first, second and fourth paragraphs, and to what the court is required to do, in the third paragraph. The admission to citizenship is to follow the observance of those conditions. The recording is to follow the admission and not precede it. The admission separates the conditions from the recording.” By the law of this decision and the law of common sense, Cannon having beendeclared a citizen by the court, stood a citizen, and no record or want of record, could change his status or his rights or take from him any of the privileges or consequences which follow citizenship. But we are challenged as to the kind of evidence necessary to show the act of admis- sion. If no record, whatever, has been kept, as Campbell’s pamphlet affirms, parol evidence may always be resorted to either to establish the record proceedings, or for the purpose of making a new entry of the record. Rhoads v. Commonwealth, 15 Penn. St., 272. Ruggs v. Parker, 7 Gray, 172. Matheson v. Gant, 2 How., U. S., 263. Frink v. Frink, 43 N. H., 508. We have, in addition to the record, the testimony of the only living witness outside of Cannon himself, the venerable Elias Smith, Probate Judge of Salt Lake County, respected by Gentile, Jew, and ‘‘Mormon” alike; he swears tothe actual fact of the oath, the examination, the admission. He is contradicted by no one, and no effort is made to dispute the effect of testimony. As to the effect of the certificate, Judge Blatchford in the case above cited uses this language: 15 ‘‘As said before, there must be an act of admission by the court. But the court has a right to say what it will regard as its act of admission, and it has a right to say what it will regard as its order that the applicant be admitted, and what it will regard as his admission. Whatever the court says is its act of admission, and whatever the court says is its order of admission, is such act and such order, whenever the question is brought up in a collateral proceeding, such as is the present proceeding, provided there is sufficient to reasonably amount to such act and such order. Here, the Superior Court has said to Coleman, by the certificate, that he has complied with all the requirements of the statute, and that it has made an order thereupon that he be admitted to be a citizen.” Judge Freedman decided that in such case, the certificate was all the evidence needed. In Re Christian, 56 How., P. R. What pretence does Campbell set forth for attacking or doubting the facts by which Cannon’s citizenship is proven? 1. He says that at some other time in some other contest (which, by the way, was the contest by Baskin in the Forty-fourth Congress, where the committee decided in favor of Cannon’s citizenship), a man by the name of Jarman testified that he (himself), had a fraudulent certificate of naturali- zation. Whatofit? Because one man isa rascal, are all men villains? Does it follow that because Jarman was not legally naturalized that there were no honest men in the United States or in Utah? By the logic of Campbell’s attorney: because Guiteau killed Garfield, every man in the United States killed him, and Cannon or Campbell could be convicted of that crime, at the pleasure of the logician; and itis upon such reasoning that the whole cause of Mr. Campbell depends. And this deposition of Jarman is the only fraudulent certificate that even counsel can remem- ber in the whole history of Utah. I say this because it is the only instance he can cite, and for that, he goes outside of the case and introduces this testimony which he could not duplicate in this case. Not only was this testimony not taken in this case, but it does not even refer to the doings of the same clerk. Cannon’s certificate was signed by Appleby; when Jarman was naturalized, fourteen years later, Lynch was clerk and issued the certificate. Noone in 1881 could be found to testify to any fraudulent certificate. 2. We find in Campbell’s apology, an ingenious piece of hypercriticism on the wording of the certificate—we are gravely assured that when it is recited that a man has sworn “‘to renounce,” he does not renounce, but merely promises to do so in the future. Such puerilities may amuse the mind of the proverbially ‘‘cunning” counsel of Campbell, but they cannot enlighten honest men who are seeking to find and determine the rights of persons whojhave applied to be citizens, conformed to all [the conditions, and 16 taken the oath the clerk of the court administered to them. The recitals in any document, certificate or judgment, do not constitute any essential or inherent part of its validity. In Re McCoupin, 5 Sawyer, 631. Judge Field, of the Supreme Court of the United States, uses this language: ‘‘The record of naturalization in his case is perfect, and the judgment valid. Its validity and efficiency, are inno respect impaired by the inaccurate statement in the recitals respecting the three years residence in the United States of the applicant previous to his attaining the age of twenty-one. The recitals constitute no part of the judgment, and whether correct or otherwise, is immaterial. The court was satisfied at the time of the suffi- ciency of the evidence presented to justify the admission of the applicant, and pronounced its judgment accordingly.” At page 15 of the argument for Campbell, his advocate makes a sum- mary of the points against Cannon’s citizenship. Each one of these is untrue in fact, and we use the same summary, the same order, and the same points exactly reversed. 1. There is a “fecord” of the court preserved in two forms. (a.) On the books, as ordered by the court. (%.) In the certificate duly signed, sealed, and delivered to Cannon. 2. Parol proof is always allowable to establish a judgment whenever it has been irregularly or defectively recorded, or its jurisdiction has been denied. Freeman on Judgments, 273, and cases cited supra. 3. There was no fraud in the action of the court admitting Cannon to citizenship. No witness has attempted to impeach the integrity or standing of the judge who presided over the court. Cannon was entitled to be made a citizen. His home being here, he had the right to go abroad for the purpose of attending to business, and yet keep his home in the United States. 4. Campbell says: ‘‘Accept every fact in Cannon’s certificate as true.’ He certainly has disputed none of them; every fact is true, but the one all important fact is the decision of the court, which no other court, tribunal, or body of men can ever set ee or impeach collaterally, “‘“AND THERE- UPON THE COURT = : ADMITTED HIM TO BE A CITIZEN;” that flat went forth in 1854, and no power in the United States can ever change, reverse or alter its effect, Campbell’s advocate attempts, by a logic peculiar to himself, to show that the woman suffrage act of Utah elected Campbell and defeated Can- non. He claims that, illegal votes being cast, the good not being dis- tinguishable from the bad, the whole vote for Cannon must be thrown out, and the vote for Campbell preserved! Why not throw out the vote for {7 Campbell aiso? In the Beaver contest, which he cites as authority, it appears by his showing that the vote for both sides was excluded quite: **The Mormon returning officers held that those illegal votes vitiated the extire poll.” Argument for Campbell, p. 20. If the “‘entire poll” of votes in Utah is vitiated, what becomes of Campbell, his 1,357 votes, and his seat?) Does Campbell pretend, in either notice, protest, answer or testimony, that no females voted for him? Not a word of it. He asks Congress or the public to imagine and presume that no females voted for him. The fact is notorious that he received a large percentage of female votes. Day after day, before the election, the news- paper of the conspirators, acting in his interest—the Salt Lake Tribune— called on the women of Utah to vote for Allen G. Campbell as their “champion.” In what regard he was their champion is not shown, but is perhaps hinted in the cross-examinationof one of their witnesses. Many women did vote tor him, and he has not dared to prove or attempt to prove that any women voted for Cannon; although in his ‘‘answer” he alleged and gave notice that he would prove that votes were cast for Cannon by females. He could spread on paper the braggart trumpet of what he would do, and yet no testimony could he bring to back his boast. The burden was on him. Whydid he not prove it? We ‘can answer. He knew too well that Cannon could prove that a greater per cent. of votes by females was cast for Campbell than for Cannon. He could make the charge but dared not face the facts. The question of the validity of the Woman Suffrage Act does not properly belong to this discussion, as it has no direct bearing on the case, not having been tested judicially. But so many falsehoods have been told concerning the tenor and effect of the law that we will briefly consider it. The Campbell pamphlet claims (p. 21) that this act requires neither citi- zenship, residence nor majority. But the act clearly provides that every woman, in order to be qualified to vote, must be, first, of the age of twenty- one years; second, have resided in the. Territory six months next preced- ing the election; third, be either born or naturalized in the United States, or the wife, widow or daughter of a citizen. This is as plain as language can make it. It follows, therefore, that a woman under twenty-one years of age cannot vote in the Territory even if she possesses the other requisite qualifications; also that a woman who is of the age of twenty-one years and possesses the third qualification, cannot vote unless she has resided in the Territory six months next preceding the election. The principle involved in the provision concerning the wife, widow or daughter of a citizen is that contained in the statutes of the United States, which makes citizens of the children of citizens, and also of the wives and 3 lad LS widows of citizens without going through the same forms as male aliens in obtaining naturalization papers. The Registration Act of 1878 provides that all citizens must be regis- tered before they can vote, and both male and female voters are required to take a certain oath, which is in form as follows: 74 hp ——, being duly sworn, depose and say, that I am over twenty-one years of age and have resided in the Territory of Utah for six months and in the precinct of one month next preceding the date hereof, and (if 2 male) am a ‘native born’ or ‘naturalized’ (as the case may be) citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer in this Territory; (or if a female) I am ‘native born’ or ‘naturalized,’ or the ‘wife,’ ‘widow,’ or ‘dauch- ter’ (as the case may be) of a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States. ‘Subscribed and sworn to before me this —— day of —~— A. D. 18—. Assessor.” All female citizens as well as males must, in order to vote, swear first, that they are over twenty-one years of age; second, that they have resided in the Territory six months and in the precinct one month next preceding the date of registration; and, third, that they are native born or naturalized citizens—in the case of females they may be either native born or natural- ized, or the wife, widow or daughter of a native born or naturalized citizen. Observe, each women voter must swear, not only that she is a citizen, or the wife, widow or daughter of a citizen, but that she is over twenty-one years of age, and that she has resided six months in the Territory, and one month in the precinct immediately before the time of the taking of the oath. Campbell boasts that he “represents the free people of Utah,” who “are bringing schools and civilization into this priest-ridden and crime- stained Territory.” Are the schools they bring represented in the logic of Campbell’s advocate or apologist? Logic that says that because votes were cast by females they are all presumed to be such, and all cast for Cannon; that declares, because one certificate is illegal, all are illegal; that because an illegal election was held for sheriff in Beaver County, Utah, there can be no legal elections in America? ‘Free people” does he call the voters for Campbell? Is it “free” to conspire to thrust into Congress one who has: not been elected? Is it “free” to rob or try to rob 18,568 people of their suffrage and give it to 1,357? It is entirely too “free” for constitutional, law-abiding governments. Is it “civilization” for the Governor to certify that Campbell was elected when he knew he was not? The less the better of such civili- zation. Freedom to rob and despoil others of their rights! Freedom to falsify election returns, and avoid prosecution by technical subterfuges, is a kind of freedom not submitted to by the people of the United States. 19 On the 8th day of June, 1881, a complaint in the nature of a bill in equity was filed in the District Court at Salt Lake, entitled the United States, Hx vel. Allen G. Campbell v. George Q. Cannon. The object of the suit seemed to be, First; to enjoin Cannon from drawing his salary as Delegate to Congress. Second, to deelare void the certificate of naturalization. Third, to obtaina decree that Cannon was not eligible to Congress. The complaint was signed by Sutherland & Mc- Bride and P. T. Van Zile as attorneys for plaintiff; it will be found in the appendix. The court had no jurisdiction of such complaint because the direct effect and probably the sole object was to have the court decide for the House that Cannon had no right to sit as a member of the House of Rep- presentatives. A motion was made to dissolve the temporary injunction. The motion was granted. Cannon continues to receive the pecuniary ben- efit of the enrollment. A demurrer was interposed to the form and objects of the suit, but mainly to the jurisdiction of the court to take from Con- gress the determination of questions involved. 1. No suit can be maintained to annul a grant existing by Act of Con- gress except the Attorney-General of the United States appear as relator or the United States as plaintiff. United States v. Throckmorton, 8 Otto, p. 70. 2. Campbell did not allege in the complaint that he was elected, but merely that he hadacertificate. The fair presumption from reading the com- plaint would be—everything being most strongly construed against the pleader, according to the rules of pleading—that Cannon was elected and was occupying and fulfilling theduties of the office, in short, the Delegate de jure and de facto; Campbell then had no interest in the controversy and could not be relator. 3. The pretended frauds set forth were not such as a court of equity will ever in any case take cognizance of; equity never sets aside judgments on account of mistakes of law, so if the court mistook the effect of Can- non’s residence, it was no ground for setting aside the certificate of natu- ralization. Courts of equity do not set aside judgments rendered upon untrue testimony. (See opinion of Judge Shaw in Greene v. Greene, 2 Gray, 361; where this branch of the law is elaborately reviewed.) 4. The court of chancery cannot try title to any office. 1 High on Injunction, Secs. 1256-1312, 1314, 1315. 5. The Clerk of the House had exclusive jurisdiction to enroll the members of the House, and the District Court can have no jurisdiction to review that action. 6. By the Constitution of the United States, the House of Representa- s is the exclusive judge of the election and qualification of its own members. It is a gross usurpation for any court to attempt to determine either the election or qualifications for the House. 20 These were some of the reasons laid before the judge of the District Court why the demurrer should be sustained and the complaint dismissed. The judge presiding, John A. Hunter, did sustain the demurrer and dismiss the complaint. He rendercd his opinion, however, in the absence of the attorney for Mr. Cannon, and then allowed Jabez G. Sutherland, attorney for “plaintiff,” the same who also took testimony for Cannon in the Fourty-fourth Congress to draw the order in his, Sutherland’s handwriting, in which condition it now stands. Sutherland put into that. order some: remarkable language for any court to hold in sustaining a demurrer. This probably is the first case in the history of jurisprudence, where a court at once determines that he has no power to proceed to determine the case, and at the same time renders a decree in favor of plaintiff. Among lawyers three would be need of little to be said of the ridiculous features of this order; not does it in itself have any effect; but immediately upon the filing of the order the agents of the conspiracy telegraphed to all the newspapers of the country that Judge Hunter had decided the naturaliza- tion of Cannon fraudulent; and solemn essays and articles appeared on the merits and effects of such decision, as if the decision had been rendered on final decree, after a hearing of the facts. That a demurrer admits nothing except for the purpose of the argu- ment of the demurrer, and cannot be used in any collateral or other pro- ceeding, is abundantly proven by the following extracts from prominent authority. In the case of the Commercial Bank of Manchester v. H. S. Buckner, appealed from the Circuit Court of Louisiana to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Wayne, in rendering the decision, said: “It was frequently urged in the argument by the counsel for complain- ants, that the demurrer of the defendant was a confession of the frauds alleged in the bill, and that, theiefore, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to give relief. ‘Our view of that demurrer is different. It is only a confession of facts well pleaded, but in this bill none were so; the power of the court to give relief, and of the complainants to bring a suit, either at law or in equity, for the original debt which they had proved in bankruptcy, having been mistaken.”’ 20 Howard, p. 314. That the facts in this case were not wel? pleaded is proven by the dis- missal of the whole case, including both facts and legal propositions. In 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 551, we find the following: “But a demurrex in chancery does not admit the fact charged ia the bill; for if it be overruled, the defendant may still answer. So it is as to pleas in chancery; these as well as demurrers, being merely hypotheti- cal statements that, supposing the facts to be as alleged, the defendant is not bound to answer,” re Other authorities, notably 9 Barbour, page 301, might be cited showing that Judge Hunter not only made assertions against the facts, but contrary to plain and simple principles of law. Chitty on pleadings, says: “The common doctrine that a demurrer admits the facts stated as the pleading, must be understood with this gualzfication that it zs only upon his argument.” ‘‘A demurrer presents only an issue in law to the court for considera- tion; the jury have no concern with it; and although it is a rule of plead- ing, that a demurrer admits facts well pleaded for the sole purpose of determining their legal sufficiency, yet as arule of evidence, that it never was supposed the demurrer admitted anything.” Pease v; Phelps, 10 Conn!, 68. See also, Stinson v. Gardiner, 34 Me., 74. That a demurrer well taken should have an effect against the party demurring, greater than if not well taken, is preposterous; for, by the practice of the courts in Utah as elsewhere, if a demurrer is overruled, the defendant has an opportunity to deny the facts of the complaint, and try this issue, before any decree can be obtained by the plaintiff. Under all the circumstances, the interpolation into the order of the language imputed to the court was the grossest and gravest of frauds, whether done by one of the original conspirators or by the mistake of the judge himself. Evidently aware of the weakness ot their legal position, the promoters of the scheme to make 1,357 votes count more than 18,568, attempt to fortify it by a breastwork of unsupported calumnies. Failing to make out a case that will bear the scrutiny of dispassionate judgment, they think to divert criticism by enlisting prejudice and arousing passion. Theruse, we doubt not, will be perceived and will fail of its purpose. But lest the assertion made about ‘‘Mormon”’ Church influence might be taken by those unfamiliar with the facts as probably correct, it will be necessary to notice the closing paragraph of the disingenuous presentation of the case of Mr. Campbell. It is alleged that ‘the church vote in Utah isin no sense an expression of the will of the voters;” that the ‘‘Twelve Apostles declare who shall be candidates and who shall be voted for,” by ‘‘edicts that are as absolute with the masses as those of a Russian Czar;” that ‘‘a free vote in Utah does not exist and never has existed.” The term “church vote” to begin with isa misnomer. Elections in Utah are not conducted by church voting any more than in other parts of the country. They are regulated by statutory laws which render them fair and free to all citizens with the proper qualifications. There are two parties in Utah, one called the People’s Party, the other the Liberal Party. The former is composed of the great majority of the citizens, The strength of the latter is exhibited 22 in the vote cast for Mr. Campbell. The People’s Party has its territoria] and county committees chosen at regularly called conventions. Primaries and other political gatherings assemble and are conducted on similar general principles to those of the great political parties of the country. They are as distinct from the “Mormon” Church organization as the Democratic machinery is from the Catholic Church, or the Republican from the Methodist Church. Advantage is sought to be taken by the special pleaders for Mr. Campbell, of the coincident Church Conference and Territorial Convention in October of 1880. When it is understood that delegates are selected in the various counties, reaching as far as from twenty to over three hundred miles from Salt Lake City, much of it out- side of railroad connection, the convenience of holding the Territorial Convention at a time when a general gathering of the people took place at the Territorial Capital will be readily perceived. But if the edict of twelve men is absolute and all that is necessary, why should the people elect com- miltees to call meetings, and why should they take the trouble to go through the forms and labors of ward primaries, county conventions and territorial assemblies, when ‘‘the duty to vote a ticket determined by the Church is unquestioned?” The instances cited as proof that there is no free voting in Utah, and that twelve Church officials exercise absolute power for Church purposes, are most singularly chosen. The case of Judge Kinney shows that a non- ‘“Mormon” was elected as Delegate to Congress; and the case of Bishop Woolley proves that the people who cannot vote “‘except as the absolute edict of the Twelve commands,” elected Woolley, when another man was “‘placed on the ticket by order of those Church authorities.” Thus, the people were “‘ordered”’ to vote for Clinton, but instead, elected Woolley; and this proves that ‘‘the duty of a ‘Mormon’ to vote the ticket determined upon by the Church is unquestioned,” and that “a free vote in Utah has never ex- isted! "—g. e. d. The assumption that the elected candidate was ordered to decline the office is as gratuitous as the assertion about the edicts of the Twelve Apostles. No order, decree, instruction or advice of the kind is quoted; it cannot be because none exists, even in the imagination of those who make the charge; they know better or they must be oblivious indeed to the plain and indisputable facts. But the conclusion arrived at after all these groundless assertions is most amusing. Because the 18,000 who voted for Mr. Cannon were ordered to do so, therefore 1,300 voted for Mr. Camp- bell as their free choice. And this is the reasoning of legal minds! Sup- posing the Cannon votes to have been forced, that would not prove that the Campbell votes were free. And coming down to facts, it could be shown, if it was worth while, that the so-called ‘Liberal’ votes are far -‘more open to the charge of coercion than those for the People’s ticket. yd The non-‘*Mormons” previous to the election were visited, lectured, urged, stormed and threatened by officials and others who took the stump for Mr. Campbell, and many of their incendiary and intimidating harangues are on record. There is one fact which of itself refutes all the rash assertions about Church dictation. and the lack of freedom at elections in Utah; and that is, the perfect secrecy of the ballot. It is impossible, under the law, to tell how any person votes at a Utah election. The ballot is placed in an en- velope; all the envelopes are uniform; no mark or device of any kind is permitted to be placed upon them: the voter can vote for whom he pleases, and no one can discover his secret unless he pleases to disclose it. There- fore, no matter who might dictate, the voter is protected in his freedom of action. And then consider the motto quoted by these ‘‘Liberal’’ logicians—or as they call it, the platform—adopted by the Convention which nominated Mr. Cannon: “The highest possible liberty for man and woman!” Trulv a characteristic utterance for “‘serfs and slaves,’ is it not? But those wonderful reasoners endeavor by inuendo to hint at something in that motto, bearing peculiar significance, coupling it with a baseless charge about polygamy. Such a low insinuation is indicative of a prurient mind, and is worthy of persons who make assertions concerning the marriage re- lations of a body of men, most of whom, coming from distant places, were perfect strangers to them, and of whose domestic affairs they were neces- sarily in the most profound ignorance. An isolated passage from Mr. Cannon’s letter of acceptance is seized and distorted from its evident meaning. But the Delegate in that letter re- cognizes the,geop/e as the nominating power, their desires being expressed through their representatives in the Convention. Itis the people whose wishes he announces himself determined to do all in his power to meet; it is the people's interests that he intends to watch; itis the duties which the people impose upon him that he promises to discharge with zeal and fidelity. What more can be asked of any nominee of any party in any part of the Union? And how much does this look like the language of one elected by the mere dicta of a dozen men? On the same principle by which Mr. Cannon’s words are wrested to refer only to the persons who nominated him, the letters of acceptance from every prominent man in the country could be twisted to apply to a faction. The eulogy upon the handful of voters who cast their ballots for Mr. Campbell will be valued at its worth. They were chiefly the denizens of the mining camps. They do not include one-half of the respectable and educated non-‘*Mormons” of Utah, who are in no sense represented by 24 that gentleman. The Territory had schools, business, energy, enterprise and all the elements of true civilization, before the class representedin Mr. Campbell’s vote came into it with the kind of civilization which is exhibit- ed by saloons and gambling dens, houses of intamy, brawls, riot and law- lessness. Unwittingly the advocates and supporters of these things admit the evil of their cause. They speak of the ‘‘Mormon” people plodding along ‘‘under orders to keep their garments unspotted from Babylon, Jde- cause its principles are at war with free thought and republican govern- ment.’ Weadmit that the people are under advice of this kind, and for the reasons named. This “Babylon” which Mr. Campbell’s legal advisers praise and uphold, is indeed opposed to free thought and republican gov- ernment. It would stifle the thought and speech of ‘“‘Mormon” devotees because their faith differs from orthodoxy. It seeks to subvert republican government in the Territory by rendering null and void the ballots of al- most the entire voting population. It would make the zfse dixit of one man, appointed by arbitrary power, more potent than the votes of nearly nineteen thousand citizens. It would overturn the republican principle that ‘“‘the majority rules” and give control to a very small and indeed in- significant minority. To crown the folly and inconsistency of their whole case the advocates of the minority candidate, after laboring desperately to throw blame on Mr. Cannon for acknowledging his nomination by a part of the people, “Insist” upon the duty of an American Congressman, not to judge impar- tially, not to regard the votes and rights of the majority, not to ‘‘serve the whole people as one,” but to “help his own friends,” they being, under the towering egotism of these legal sophists, themselves and the small sprinkling of supporters of Mr. Campbell. We appeal to American Congressmen to avoid all prejudice; to disre- gard the calumnies and insinuations dragged into this case for unworthy objects; to deal out the same evenhanded justice to a ““Mormon” Delegate as to a “Gentile” Representative; to put their feet on the usurpation of a petty official who has attempted to assume their august functions; to recog- nize the inalienable rights of the majority; to preserve the sanctily of the ballot’ box; to protect naturalized citizens who in good faith have complied with the forms of law, from the strained technicalities of defeated parti- zans; and to stand as the representatives of popular suffrage and the prin- ciples of constitutional liberty and law, unmoved by any considerations than regard for right, the claims of duty and the dictates of enlightened conscience. DECLARATION OF RESULT OF ELECTION BY AND LERTIFICATE OF GOVERNOR MURRAY. On the fourteenth day of Decembes, 1880, the Secretary of the Territory, in my presence, opened the returns received by mail, of an election for Dele- gate of the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, held on the ‘Tuesday after the first Monday of November, of said year. The returns show that George Q. Cannon received 18,568 votes, and Allen G. Campbell received 1,357 votes. At that time notice of protest by Allen G. Campbell, was given, which protest was afterwards filed, objecting to a certificate being issued to Mr. Cannon. Following is the protest: To His Excellency, Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah: The time will soon arrive for the final canvass, under your supervision, of the return of votes given at the late election, for Delegate to Congress from this Territory. Iam not ignorant of what the public generally know in respect to the voting at this election and its supposed result. On the surface the returns wi!l not show, probably, that a majority of the votes actually cast were given forme. But if it be true, as I insist it is, that all the votes not poled in my favor are legally blank, then I owe it to those who placed me in nomination, and by a still higher obligation to the whole community, in the interest of good government to protest, and I do protest against the counting of any votes for George Q. Cannon. The performance of the duty, however, would be productive of no result except to mortify and disgust legal voters whose’ choice is nnllitied, unless there is a power conferred on you to so conduct this canvass that legal voters shall only be included. If it were a matter of indifference whether the names voted for as candi- dates represented actual persons or mere mythical characters—persons qualified or persons ineligible—if it were immaterial to discriminate between the votes given by those entitled to exercise the elective franchise and those given by persons whom the law excludes on the ground of sex, minority, or alienage from the privilege of voting, then a mere count of votes and com- parison of aggregates would decide to wkom your certificate of election should be given. If it is not, however, consonant to the American theory of popular elections to office, to ignore such disqualification nor to confer such limited powers upon those charged with the duty to ascertain the result, then there can be no elimination of votes illegally received. Tt cannot be said that the laws have so imperfectly guarded the ballot box and provided for pure and regular elections, that if illegal votes are once received by some error of judgment or failure of duty by officers re- gistering voters or having the immediate control of elections, the wrong is forever incapable of rectification. No remedy is adequate or effective in respect to offices for short terms, which does not administer the corrective during the canvass, for before any other remedy can be sought and applied, the motive to pursue it ceases, by SF | the expiration of the term, the wrong prospers and the authors are thereby encouraged to repeat it and generally do. This ysubje ct has such local importance that I venture some suggestions in support of your powers in the premises, at the risk of incurring your criticism for assuming to defend the executive jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Utah Compiled 1.aws s provide: “That so soon as all the returns are received, the Secretary, in the presence of the Governer, shall unseal and examine them, and furnish to each person having the highest number of votes for any Territorial office a certificate of his election.’’ The returns here spoken of are: A brief abstract of the offices and naines voted for, and the number of votes each person receives. By Sees. 23 and 24 it will be observed that the duty imposed by See. 25, is to give the certificate to the person having the highest number of votes,and that it is not required by the terms of that section ‘that the highest number of votes shall be determined from tye returns. The duty to examine the returns, and that to give a certificate, are successive and distinct duties. The returns from certain counties, or the vote of certain precincts, may have to be rejected, for causes appx urent on the face of the returns, or other evidence may ‘afford grounds tor such rejection. The direction to you and the Secretary as final canvassers, is to issue the certificate to the person having the highest number of votes; therefore, since the mode of ascertaining “the important fact is not prescribed, and since on general principles, w hena general duty is required to be peformed, there is conferred by necessary implication the incidental power to adopt any suitable means necessary to the doing of that duty, evidence may be received in connection with the returns, to assist in coming to a correct con- clusion, This construction of the statute harmonizes your functions in re- spect to this office with those of similar offices generally. In Cushing’s Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, page 52, the author quotes from another: ‘There can “be no doubt that in those branches wherein the law has marked out a definite line, it is ministerial; but as re- gards the two material branches of deciding upon the capacity or incapacity of candidates, or upon the qualifications or " disqualifications of electors, the subject requires some investigation; but if the returning officer (you are clearly one) be fully apprised of some notorious disqualification, whether of a candidate or of an elector, such as their being minors, or claiming in the right of property, which clearly does not entitle them to the privilege, he is so far a judicial officer as to prevent their voting or being returned,” and the author adds: ‘*In judicial decisions of this country, when the point is ad- verted to, it seems to be considered, that the functions of returning officers are chiefly judicial in their character.”’ If so, it follows of course, in the absence of a legislative rule to the contrary, that you are to act upon evidence, and on any evidence which applies to tke subject, and would be competent before any other judicial tribunal having the same question to decide. I shall, in accordance with these views, address this, my protest to you, as a quasi judicial officer, protest against the issue of any certificate of elec- tion to George Q. Cannon, and I demand the issue of one to myself, because he has not, and I have, the highest number of votes for the office of Delegate to Congress of the United States, on the following grounds: First—It will appear by the returns to the Secretary that 1,357 votes were given for me for said office, and there is no evidence pending to gainsay my qualifications for the office, or those of the electors voting for me. Second—George Q. Cannon is an unnaturalized alien. Being such he | is not eligibie to the office; all the votes given for him are void. I quote from the author before referred to: ‘If an election is made of a person who is ineligible, that is incapable of being elected, the election of such person is absolutely void; even though he is voted for at the same time with others who are eligible, and who are accordingly elected, and this is equally true \ My Til whether the disability is known to the elector or not; whether a majority of all the votes, ora plurality only, is necessary to the election, and whether the votes, are given orally or by ballot.’’ (Id. p. 66,) According to this authority and the authority which he cites, it is the law in this country, and also in England, that not only will the election of a disqualified person be held as void, but if such election takes place after notice of the disqualifica- tion is given to the electors, the candidate having the next highest number of votes will be elected. (Id. pp. 66, 67.) Notice of Mr. Cannon’s disqualification has been very thoroughly pub- lished in this Territory before the election. This legal objection of alienage derives great force from the political and moral aspect of his life and conduct. George Q. Cannon isa polygamist, hav - ing lived for many years, and is still living with four women as wives, in violation of the law. He openly adv ocates polygamy in his public ad- dresses in Utah, and thus incites others to break the law enacted by Con- vress on that subject in harmony with the morai sentiments of the civilized. world. Not only is he not naturalized, but he is not qualified to be natural- ized; without thorough reconstruction he could not be proven to be a man of good moral character, nor could he, while in his present criminal contu- macy, sincerely make oath that he is; ‘Attached to the-Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.’’ Third—Under void legislation of this Territory, females have voted in large numbers; they are partisans of said Cannon, ‘and it must be taken for vranted that they voted for him at the late election. Calculating the present number of votes in this T erritory by adding to the vote given six years ago, (about 27,000), according to the ratio of popular increase from 1870 to 1880, as shown Hy the census returns, there were at least 40,000 de facto voters in the ‘Territory when the last election took place. ‘The entire vote polled at this election, including the vote of females, was less than 20,000; therefore at least 20,000 voters stayed at home, and less than half the total vote was actu- ally polled and returned. The females in this Territory claiming the right to vote, outnumber the males having the right; the poll lists show also that they outstrip the males in voting. Thus it Will be seen that there are more females in this Territor AY claiming the right to vote than the whole number of votes polled at the late election. ' As these votes are illegal, how can you avoid the conclusion that they have vitiated the election, by rendering it impossible to determine without proof, that the pretended majority reported for Mr. Cannon does not consist of such votes. ‘The fact that there was such an enormous illegal vote, known as certain te be polled wil account for the absence of so many legal voters from the polls. That the act of the Territorial Legislature purporting to establish female suffrage is void, is now generaly conceded. It is so because it attempts to confer the privilege »y a special act on different and easier terins of qualifi- tion than those required by existing general law applicable to the other sex, thus violating the rule of uniformity. In conclusion, be it understood that I protest against the issuance of any certificate to George Q. Cannon as the substantive matter and purpose of this paper; and it seems clear beyond all controversy, that if he is ot quali- tied to hold the offlce, that no majority of legal votes can be said to have been given for him, and that it is within your power, for these causes, to witbhold the certificate of election. On reaching this conclusion as a secondary matter, I trust you will find it consistent with your views, and in the line of duty to hold that the votes viven for me, entitle me to the certificate. With great respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant. ALLEN G. CAMPBELL. Frisco, Dec. 12th, 1880. Ly: CANNON’S ANSWER. The answer of Mr. Cannon to the protest of Mr. Campbell was filed be- fore me January 7, 1881, which answer is as follows: To His Excellency Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah: Srr—In reply to the communication of Allen G. Campbell, Esq., in which he protests against the issue of a certificate of election to me as Dele- gate of the Territory of Utah inthe Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, and demands the issue of the certificate to himself, I re-pectfully submit the following statements: The grounds on which Mr. Campbell bases his protest and demand are: 1. That as canvassing officers the Governor and Secretary have power to ‘‘go behind the returns,’’ and ascertain from extrinsic evidence the num- ber of votes legally cast for each candidate. 2. That there is no evidence tending to disprove his qualifications for the office of Delegate to Congress. 3. That there is no evidence tending to disprove the qualifications of the 1,367 electors who voted for him. 4. That Iam an unnaturalized alien. 5. That, being such, I am not eligible to the office of Delegate to Con- gress, and that my iueligibility resulting from alienage is aggravated by polygamy, which he thinks is incompatible with citizenship and inconsistent with an honest oath of allegience to the Constitution of the United States. 6. That all of the 18,568 votes cast for me at the late election are therefore void and are to be excluded from the canvass. 7. That as a consequence the certificate of election is to be delivered by the canvassers to him, and not to me. 8. That the females in the Territory who elaimed the right to vote out~- numbered all the votes polled at the election. 9. That it ‘‘must be taken for granted’’ that all votes cast by females were cast for me. ; 10. That the Territorial legislation which extends the right of suffrage to females is void. 11. That itis, therefor, imposible to determine, without proof, that the 18,568 votes cast for me included more legal votes than the 1,357 votes cast for him. 12. That the votes of the females have ‘‘vitiated the election.” With your Excellency’s permission, I will answer these several proposi- tions in their order. 1. The process of reasoning by which Mr. Campbell reaches the conclu- sion that the Governor and Secretary, as canvassing officers, have power to ‘‘oo behind the returns, and to ascertain from extrinsic proofs the number of votes cast for each candidate,’’ is first to be considered. He refers to the following provisions of the ‘‘Compiled Laws of Utah:’ ‘23. Immediately upon receiving the electoral returns of any precinct, the County Clerk and Probate Judge, or, in his absence, one of the select- -men, Shall unseal the list and ballot box, and count and compare the votes with the names on the list, and make a brief abstract of the offices and names voted for, and the number of votes each person received; the hallot box shall then be returned and the vote and list preserved for reference in ease the election of any person shall be contested. 24. Whenall the returns and abstracts are made the clerk shall forth- with make a general abstract and post it up in his office, and forward to the Secretary of the Territory a certified copy of the names of the persons voted for, and the number of votes each has received for Territorial offices, and vy furnish each person having the highest number of votes for county and precinct offices a certificate of his election. 25. So soon as all the returns are received, the Secretary, in presence of the Governor, shall unseal and examine them, and furnish to each person having the highest number of votes for any Territorial office a certificaie of election.” ; He thinks that because these statutory provisions do not, in express terms, require the canvassers to give the certificate to the person shown by the returns to have the highest number of legal votes, they by implication do require them to give it to the person who, whatever the returns show, did in fact receive the highest number of legal votes; that this duty neces- sarily implies the power to employ suitable ineans to ascertain who received the highest number of legal votes; and that, therefore, the Governor and Secretary, as canvassers, have the right to resort to extraneous evidence to ascertain the real facts in this case. He seeks to fortify his conclusion by the following citation from page 52 of ‘‘Cushing’s Law and Practice of Leg- islative Assemblies.” ‘There can be no doubt that in those branches wherein the law has marked out a definite line it is ministerial; but as regards the two material branches of deciding upon the capacity or incapacity of candidates, or upon the qualifications or disqualifications of electors, the subject requires seme investigation; but if the returning officer be fully apprised of some notorious disqualification, whether of a candidate or of an elector, such as their being minors or claiming in the right of property, which clearly does not entitle them to the privilege, he is so fara judicial officer as to prevent their voting or being returned. In judicial decisions of this country, when the point is adverted to, it seems to be considered that the functions of re- turning officers are chiefly judicial in their character.”’ I respectfully submit that each and every step in this reasoning is erron- eous, and that the conclusion reached is absolutely destitute of warrant in law. ‘The provisions of sections 23, 24 and 25 of the statutes of Utah confer upon the Governor and Secretary, as canvassing officers, no judicial power to ‘‘go behind the returns”’ for the purpose of ascertaing the number of votes cast for any candidate. It is made their duty to ascertain whom the returns show to have received the highest number of votes, and to give the certificate to him. The only judicial or quasi-judicial power vested in themfis to deter- mine whether the papers before them purporting to be returns are returns made in substantial conformity to the law. If they decide that the papers are such returns, they must embrace their showing in the official canvass. If they decide that they are not such returns, they must exclude them from the canvass. The precinct judges of electionsin this Territory make no returns be- yond the mere transmission to the county clerk of the sealed ballot box and list of electors. They are not precinct canvassers. Thev do not return to the county clerks the number of votes cast for each candidate. They only return the ballots and the poll lists. Upon the county clerks and probate judges, or selectmen, is imposed the duty of canvassing the votes, in the first instance, by counting the ballots, and comparing their number with the number of names on the poll lists, and preparing statements of the offices and names votes for, and the number of votes cast for each candidate. The votes and lists are not sent to the Secretary of the Territory, but remain in charge of the clerks. The law makes no provision for any inspection of the ballots or of the poll lists by the Governor or Secretary before their canvass is completed and the certificates delivered to the successful candidates. It places nothing before the Governor and Secretary, except a certified copy of the names of the persons voted for and the number of votes cast for each. If the law requires them not merely to ascertain the number of votes shown by the clerk's returns to have been received by each candidate,but the num- ber of votes shown by the ballots and poll lists, and by intrinsie proof, to 2 Ap? have been legally cast for each candidate—that is to say, not merely to can- vass the clerk’s returns, but to canvass the votes themselves and determine their legality—then the law is an outrage, not only on the Governor and Secretary, who are compelledto make “bricks without straw,’’ but on the sandidates whose rights are to be adjudicated by officers from whom the law deliberately withholds the means essential to correct adjudications. This would be a most scandalous condition of the territorial law if it really ex- isted. But such is not the law of Utah. The question now under consideration has been adjudicated many times by judicial and legislative tribunals in the United States, upon statutory provisions substantially like those embraced in Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the ‘‘Laws of Utah.’’ It has never been decided in favor of Mr. Campbell. Mr. McCrary, in his law of Elections (Section 82), correctly states the rule estab- lished by the concurrent authority of these decisions to be, that the canvass- ers ‘‘must receive and count the votes as shown by the returns, and they cannot go behind the returns for any purpose; and this necessarily implies that when a paper is presented as a return, and there is a question as to whether it is a return or not, they must decide that question from what ap- pears upon the face of the paper itself.”’ Under statutory provisions similar to those of Utah, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the powers of the canvassers were restricted to the detirmination of the result shown by the returns. The following is the pro- vision of the Missouri statute: “The Secretary of State, in the presence of the Governor, shall proceed to open the returns and to cast up the votes given for all candidates for any office, and shall give to the persons having the highest number of votes for members of Congress from each district, certificates of election under his hand with the seal of the State affixed thereto.”’ In State vs. Steers, 44 Mo., 224, the court held: ‘“‘Here is no discretion given, no power to pass upon and adjudge whether votes are legal or illegal, but the simple ministerial duty to cast up and to award the certificate to the person having the highest number of votes.”’ The New York election law of April 17, 1822, provides that the inspector appointed for that purpose, ‘‘Snall, in person, deliver to the said clerk at this offiee, or to his deputy, or to the keeper of said office, a true copy of the said statement of votes,’’ and thereupon the board of canvassers ‘‘shall proceed to calculate and ascer- tain the whole number of votes which shall be given at such election in the said county for the several persons who shall be voted for as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States, orso many of the said offices as shall be voted for, and shall set down in writing the names of the several candidates so voted for at any such election for any of the offices aforesaid, and the number of votes in words written at full length which shall be given for any such candidates at any such election inthe said county, and shall certify the same to be a true copy of the votes given in said county.”’ In the case of The People vs Van Slyck, 4 Cow., 323, which was decided in February, 1825, under the foregoing statutory provision, the Court said: ‘‘The duties of the canvassers are ministerial. They are required to attend at the clerk’s office and calculate and ascertain the whole number of votes ° given at any election, and certify the same to be a true canvass. This is not a judicial act, but merely ministerial. Tuey have no power to controvert the votes of the electors.”’ It is provided in section 25 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois (1856) that the clerk of the County Commissioners’ Court, taking to his assistance two justices of the peace of his county, ‘Shall proceed to open the returns and make abstracts of the votes in the folowing manner: * * * And it shall be the duty of the said clerk of the Vat County Commissioners’ Court immediately to make out a certificate of elec- tion to each of the persons having the highest number of votes.’’ In the case of The People vs. Head, 25 I11., 327, the court held: “This contest, under our statute, is an original proceeding instituted by the contestant for the purpose of trying the legality of the election, and not of the canvass. It goes behind the canvass and purges the election itself. The court, in trving it. is not confined to the poll books as returned, but it can go behind these and inquire, by proof dehors, whether the votes, or any of them, were illegal. But the canvassers have no right to do this. Theirs isa mere mechanical, or rather, arithmetical duty. They may probably judge whether the returns are in due form, but, after that, they can only canvass the votes for the several candidates and declare the result.” Section 95, chapter V1, of Revised Statutes of Wisconsin (1849) is in these words: ‘“‘Whenever it shall satisfactorily appear that any person has received a plurality of the legal votes cast at any election for any office, the canvassers shall give to such person a certificate of election, notw ithstanding the pro- visions of law may not have been fully complied with in noticing or con- ducting the election, or canvassing the returns of votes, so that the real will of the people may not be defeated by an informality.”’ Under this statute it was held by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Attorney General vs. Barstow, 4 Wis., 775, as follows: ‘‘Whether it would have been competent for the Legislature, under the Constitution which delegates all of the judicial power of the State to the courts of the State, to give to the board of State canvassers judicial authority to settle and adjudicate rights of this nature, it is not necessary to inquire. They have not given them any such power. Their duties are strictly minis- terial. They are to add up and ascertain by calculation the number of votes given for any office. They have no discretion to hear and take proof as to frauds, even if morally certain that monstrous frauds have been perpetrated. The ninety-tifth section of this statute gives them no such power.”’ The Revised Statutes of Michigan for 1846 (p. 51) contain the following provision: “The said board of canvassers, when formed as aforesaid, shall proceed to examine the stateinents received by the Secretary of State of the votes given in the several counties, and make a statement of the whole number of votes given for the office of Representative in each Congressionial district, which shall show the names of the persons to whom such votes shall have been given for said office, and the whole number of votes given to each. The said canvassers shall certify such statement to be correct, and subscribe their names thereto, and they shall thereupon determine what persons have been, by the greatest number of votes, duly elected to such offices, and make and subscribe on such statement a certificate of such determination, and deliver the same to the Secretarv of State.”’ Under this statutory provision the Supreme Court of the State, in the case of The People vs. Van Cleve, 1 Mich., 336, said: “Tn a republican government, where the exercise of official power is but a derivative from the people through the medium of the ballot, it would be a monstrous doctrine that would subject the publie will and the public voice thus expressed to be defeated by either the ignorance or the corruption of a ‘board of canvassers. The duties of these boards are simply miuisterial. Their whole duty consists in ascertaining who are elected, and preserving ‘tho evidences of such election.’’ It is provided on page 77 of the Revised Statutes of Maine for 1841, as follows: “The returns from each town and plantation shall be delivered into the office of the clerk of the county commissioners on or before the first day of the meeting of said commissioners next after the said month of September, to be by them opened and compared with the like returns from the several VITI towns and plantations in such county or registry district, and the person having a majority of the votes shall be declared registrar of deeds for said county or registry district.”’ The Supreme Court of Maine, in Bacon vs. York County Commissioners, 26 Me., 498, a case which arose under this statute, held: “The cauvassers had no power to go beyond the returns of the selectmen and town clerks, and receive other evidence, and determine therefrom that the town meeting was not properly called, and for that cause reject the votes of that town.” In O’Ferrall vs. Colby, 2 Minn., 186, a case decided under similar statu- tory provisions, the court held: ‘““‘We cannot, therefore, resist the conclusion that the duties of the clerk of the board of supervisors in receiving and opening election returns, in canvassing and estimating the votes, and in giving certificates of election, are purely ministerial, and that no judicial or discretionary powers are con- ferred upon him or the board of canvassers, except, perhaps, so far as to determine whether the returns are spurious or genuine, or polled at estab- lished precincts, and in ascertaining from the returns themselves for whom the votes were intended.”’ The Supreme Court of Indiana, undera similar statute, in the case of Brower vs. O’Brien, 2 Carter (Ind.,) 430, held: “With regard to this point, it may be observed that the duties of both the board of canvassers and the clerk in making the statement are purely ministerial. It is not within their‘provinee to consider any questions relat- ing to the validity of the election held or of the votes received by the parties voted for. They are simply to cast up the votes given for each person, from the proper election documents, and to declare the persons who, upon the face of these documents, appear to have received the highest number of votes given, duly elected to the offices voted for ”’ The paragraph quoted from Mr. Cushing’s work shows upon its face that the returning officer, who is said to be “so far a judicial officer as to prevent their voting or being returned,” is a judge of election as well as a returning officer. If Mr. Cushing refers to mere canvassers, his statement, that in the judicial decisions of this country their functions are held to be chiefly judicial, is an inexcusable blunder. 2. Mr. Campbell’s next proposition is, that there is no evidence tending to impeach his qualifications for the office of Delegate to Congress. That the returns present no such evidence, is probable; and if the returns on their face disclose nothing to impeach his qualifications, it is quite immaterial to inquire now whether Mr. Campbell is or is not eligible to the office which he seeks. The House of Representatives is the only tribunal empowerd to adjudicate that question. If the Governor and Secretary find, from the re- turns, that he is elected, they must award the certificate to him, whatever proofs outside of the returns may or may not be attainable to impeach his eligibility before the House of Representatives. Such proofs cannot be used in this canvass. 3. The same answer is to be made to the assertion that there is no evi- dence tending to impeach the qualifications of the 1,357 electors who voted for Mr. Campbell. Whatever evidence may exist on this point outside of the returns, it cannot be considered by the Governor or Secretary in this proceeding; it can only be considered by the House of Representatives of the United States. 4. Mr. Campbell’s next assertion is, that 1am an unnaturalized foreign- er. This presents a question of fact upon which the returns to be canvassed by the Governor and Secretary probably furnish no evidence beyond the presumption, to be drawn from _ those returns, that the electors per- formed their duty according to law, and, therefore, that the candidates for whom they voted have all the legal qualifications for office whatever they may be. if there be any proofs attainable tendiug to overthrow this pre- ) IX sumption and to show that Iain an unnaturalized foreigner, and therefore destitute of the necessary qualification of citizenship, it is obviously incom- petent for the canvassing board to go behind the returns and consider such proofs. The only tribunal which has power to do suin this case isthe House of Representatives of the United States. The difference between the duties of the precinct election officers and those of the canvassers is very great. The precinct election officers are judges of election. In the first instance it devolves upon them to judge of the qualifications of electors, in subordination to the provisions of law regu- lating their duties; but it never devolves upon any canvasser to judge of the qualifications of electors unless by virtue of express—and, I will add, most extraordinary and dangerous—statutory provisions. Only in a few excep- tional cases have any such indefensible provisions been made by statute in the United States. The House of Representatives is, by the Constitution, made the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its members. ‘lhe power of the House does not exclude the power of the judges of election to act within their statutory authority as judges of the qualifications of electors; nor does it exclude the power of canvassers to act as judges of the returns presented to them to be canvassed, so far as to determine whether they are or are not re turns substantially conforming to the law. But it does not exclude the power of precinct officers to judge of the qualifications of candidates; and it excludes the power of canvassers to judge either of the qualifications of elec- tors, or of the qualifications of candidates. It also confers upon the House the power to decide on all points, including the qualifications of electors and the legal sufficiency of the precinct returns. LT respectfully submit, therefore, that the Governor and Secretary have no power to go behind the returns to ascertain whether I am or am not an unnaturalized foreigner. This disposes of the point. But then the fact is that on the seventh day of December, 1854, by a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, I was duly naturalized ac- cording to law, as Mr. Campbell well knows. In the case of Spratt vs. Spratt, 4 Pet., 393, Chief Justice Marshall said: “The various acts upon the subject submit the decision of the right of aliens to admission as citizens to courts of record. They are to receive testimony, to compare it with the law, and to judge upon both law and fact. This judgment is entered on record as the judgment of the court. It seems to us, if it be in legal form, to close all inquiry, and, like every other judg- ment, to be complete evidence of its own validity.” In Campbell ys. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176, the Supreme Court of the United States held: “Tt is true that this requisite (good moral character) to his admission is not stated in the certificate; but it is the opinion of this court that the court of Sufiolk must have been satisfied as to the character of the applicant, or otherwise a certificate that the oath prescribed by law had been taken would not have been granted. The oath, when taken, confers upon him the rights of a citizen, and amounts to a judgment of the court of his admission to those rights. It is, therefore, the unanimous opinion of the court that Wil- liam Currie was duly naturalized.” If, now, it were competent fer the House itself, in a contested case, to re- verse or vacate this judgment and to declare that I am an unnaturalized foreigner, it would not be competent for the Governor and Secretary, acting as canvassers, to do this. The notion that any jurisdiction to reverse or vacate that judgment for mistake or fraud, or on any other grounds, is vested in the canvassing officers in this case, is too preposterous to admit of any comment from me. But iu the case of Baskin vs. Cannon, in the Forty- fourth Congress, this precise objection to my eligibility was urged before the Committee of Elections of the House, and was overruled by the unani- mous vote of the committee, on the ground that the judgment of the First District Court of Utah on this point was conclusive, and I retained my seat in the House. x Not only is there no legal ground for a question of my eligibility by the Territorial canvassers, or even by the House of Representatives itself, based on the ground of alienage, but though such ineligibility could be a lawful ground rof action by the committee or the House, it would not, as Mr. Camp- bell supposes, be aggravated by polygamy, if that could also be added as a factor in the adjudication. For, in the case of Maxwell vs. Cannon, in the Forty-third Congress, Smith’s Digest, 188, if was unanimously held by the committee, with “the concurrence of the House, that the only qualifications or disqualifications of Delegates were those prescribed by the Constitution for Representatives, and that polygamy was not a disqualification for a seat in the House of Representatives of the United States. 5. Mr. Campbell’s fifth proposition is that my alleged want of citizen- ship renders me ineligible to the office of Delegate in Congres. I concede, for the sake of the argument, that an unnaturalized foreigner ought to be ineligible to the office of Delegate from Utah, just as he is “ineligible to the office of Representative in Congress. I make this concession, not beeause [ am certain that the proposition “is founded in the Constitution or in the law, but because it seems to me to be founded in common sense. The Constitu- tion provides neither for the qualifications of the office of Delegate in Con- gress nor for the office itself. The law accords to every Territory the right to send a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States. (Rev. Stats., Sec. 1862). It prescribes the qualification of citizenship for the Delegates from Washington, Idaho, and Montana, (Rev. Stats. See. 1906). but for the Delegates from no other Territory. Whether, in the face of the ° constitutional provisions that ‘‘the House shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States;’’ (Art. 7, Sec. 2); that ‘‘each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifi- cations of its members;”’ (Art. 7, See. 5); and that ‘teach House may deter- mine the rules of its procedure,”’ (Art. 7, Sec. 5), the law creating the office of Delegate would or would not have any validity as against a rule of the House excluding from the floor all 'ferritorial Delegates, or anv other per- sons not constitutional members or officers of the House, I admit, for the purposes of this argument, that so long as Delegates shali be received in conformity with the provisions of the statute, it will be within the power of the House, and also its duty, pragtically to recognize and enforce this quali- fication of citizenship, whether prescribed by law or not. But it is an insult to the Governor and Secretary to suggest that they are capable of such un- warrantable invasion of the jurisdiction of the courts and of the House of Representatives as to attempt to incorporate as an element into their canvass in this case a decision adverse to my eligibility, based on a reversal or vaca- tion of the judgment by which I was naturalized. 6,7. The next two propositions of Mr. Campbell may be conveniently considered together. He asserts that by reason of my alleged ineligibility all the 18,568 votes cast for me at the late election are void and are to be ex- cluded from the canvass, and that, as a consequence, the certificate of elec- tion is to be given to him, and not tome. I will cite, without discussion, the authorities by which the doctrine involved in these propositions has been repudiated as often as it has appeared in the Senate or in the House. . Thecase of Smith vs. Brown, 2 Bart., 395, is the leading case in the House of Representatives, It was reported from the committee on elections by the ehairman, Mr. Dawes, on the 28th of January, 1868. His exhaustive discussion of the subject appears on pages 402-405 of the second volume of Rartlett’s Contested Election Cases. He refers 10 the case of Ramsey vs. Hall, 23, argued by Mr. Madison in the House at the first session of the First Coneress, and to the cases of Albert Gallatin in the Senate in 1793, Philip Barton Key in the House in 1807, John Bailey in the House in 1824, James Shields in the Senate in 1849, and John Young Brown in the House in 1859. He also reviews the English authorities, and the opinion expressed in Cushing’s treatise, which is cited by Mr. Campbell, and he closes the XI discussion by declaring that ‘The law of the British Parliament in this par- ticular has never been adopted in this country, and is wholly inapplicable to the system of government under which we live.’’ In the subsequent case of Zeigler vs. Rice, this precise question was decided as follows: “Thus if will be seen that, according to the contestee’s own statement, he had entered into an agreement to recruit for the rebel army; was on his ‘way to carry out fully his understanding when he was captured, and claimed protection as a rebel officer when captured. The Committee are well satis- fied that the acts of the contestee were well understood by the voters of said district at the time the contestee was voted for, but do not agree with con- testant that, as contestee was ineligible, the candidate who was eligible 1s entitled to the seat.’’ (z Bart., 884.) The committee accordingly recommended a resolution unseating Mr, Rice and declaring the seat vacant; but the House refused even to evict Mr. Rice. On the contrary, by the adoption of a substitute for the committee’s resolution, without a division, Mr. Rice was declared entitled to the seat. The proceedings may be found on page 5447, vol. £0, of tie Congressional alobe, In the Fortieth Congress, Simeon Corley, of South Carolina, Pierce M. B. Young and Nelson Tift, of Georgia, and Roderick R. Butler, of Tennessee, and in the Forty-first "Congress, Francis E. Shober, of North Carolina, members of the House, were > reliev ed of their disabilities long after their election, and vet, when. so relieved, were admitted to their seats in the House. All were ineligible when chosen, but in neither case was the seat given to a competitor, nor the election even declared void. In the case of Joseph C. Abbot, in the Senate (Forty-second Congress), the doctrine now asserted by Mr. Campbell was fully considered, and was repudiated by the Senate. There has not been and probably will not be in this country another discussion of the subject so exhaustive as that which was had in this case. The English authorities were all presented, and very few, if any, American decisions, whether judicial or parliamentary, escaped the ser utiny of the Senators who submitted the report of the coinmittee and the views of the minority, which are printed together in Senate Report No. 58, Forty-second Congress, second session. In the case of Maxwell vs. Cannon. decided in the Forty-third Congress, the same question was raised, {and the committee and House, without a division, rejected the doctrine now asserted by Mr. Campbell. 8. In reply to Mr. Campbell’s assertion that the females in the Territory who claimed the right to vote outnurabered all the votes polled at the late election, I respectfully submit, in the first place, that this alleged fact proba- bly does not appear on the face of the returns; and, in the next place, that if it be a fact capable of substantiation by extraneous proofs, and at the same time entitled to weight in any aspect of this case, the only tribunal invested with power to ascertain the fact and use it as a basis of judicial action is the House of Representatives of the United States. 9. Mr.Campbell asserts that it ‘must be taken for granted”’ that all votes cast by females were cast for me. On this point also Mr. Campbell is mis- taken. If this is not shown bv the returns, the canvassers can neither pre- sume it nor permit Mr. Campbell to attempt tofprove it before them by extrinsic evidence, nor can they consider the fact when so proven. If he shall contest my seat in the nextC ongress, and shall deem the mode in which the females voted material to any issue in the contest, he will learn that the House will not presume what he asserts on tnis point to be true, but will compel him to prove it. 10. Mr. Campbell asserts that the terrltorial legislation which extends the right of suffrage to females is void because “it attempts to confer the privilege bya special act on different and easier terms of qualification than those required by existing general laws applicable to the other sex, thus XIT violating the rule of uniformity.’’ If this assertion be true, itcin have no bearing upon the action of the canvassers, who have no power to look beyond the returns for the purpose of ascertaining whether females voted, how many voted, or for whom they voted, but only upon the action of the House of Representatives in a contest or undera protest before that tribunal. It is nota necessity of my case, therefore, that I shall vindicate the “act conferring upon women the elective franchise,’ approved February 12, 1870. ll. The next proposition of Mr. Campbell is, that itis, in view of the premises, impossible — to determine, without proof, that the 18,568 votes cast for me included more legal votes than the 1,357 votes cast for him. This involves a singular misconception of the effect of these returns and of the relation sustained to them by the Governor and Secretary as canvassing officers. Mr. Campbell asserts the presumption to be that the votes returned for me were illegal votes, and that they are not to be can- ' vassed for me 1n theabsence of affirmative proof dehors the returns showing that they were 1n fact legal votes. Theabsurdity of this assertion is not even mitigated by a concession that the same presumption arises as to votes cast for him. ‘The rule does not, in his judgment, ‘work both ways.”’ The trath, however, on this point is very manifest. ‘The presumption is that all votes shown by returns legal in form, to have been cast for him or for me were so cast, and were lawfully cast. This presumption is not conclusive on the House in a contest duly prosecuted. It may be overcome by extrinsic proof. But itis conclusive on the canvassing officers, and ca inot before them be overcome by proofs outside of the returns if the returns are regular and legal. 12. Mr.Campbell’s last point is that the votes of the women have ‘‘vitiated the election by rendering it impossible to determine without proof that the pretended majority for Mr. Cannon does not consist of such votes.’”? This is a most remarkable view of the law to be entertained by an aspirant to a seat in Congress. No board of canvassers can ever be absolutely certain that the majority of any candidate does not consist of ilegal votes, without extrinsic proof which is not ‘merely presumtive but absolutely conclusive. But the absence of such conclusive proof does not make the election void. It is an impossibility that any county returns should furnish conclusive proof of the legality of any votes. The proof which these returns afford is not conclusive, but presumptive. Upon this presumptive proof the can- vassers must act. They can resort to no other. Itis for them conclusive. They must award the credentials to the candidate shown by the returns to have been elected. In the House the case is different. The House may, in a contest of protest inquire into and pass upon the title to a seat; but even in the House the credentials will be presumptive evidence of title, and will be - decisive of the case unless overcome by counter proof. The House itself will not, in the absence of a contest, require conclusive proof. And in a con- tested case, a preponderence of proof will be decisive, whether the’ proof be or be not conclusive. If the House in a contested case shall find that of my 18,568 votes, 17,212 were illegal, whether cast by women or by men, and that of Mr. Campbell’s 1,357 none were illegal, the election will not be rendered void, but the seat will be awarded to Mr. Campbell. Butif the House shall not find that so many illegal votes were cast for me, it will confirm my title to the seat, whatever assertions Mr. Campbell may see fit to make inthe impeachment of that title. Of the question presented in this branch of Mr. Catnpbell’s protest, the Governor and Secretary, as canvassers, obviously have no shadow of jurisdiction. Having answered all the propositions upon which Mr. Campbell bases his protest against an award of the certificate of election to me, and his demand of an award of the certificate of election to himself, I respectfully submit that a returned majority of 17,211 votes, ina total vote of 19,825, gives me a title to the credentials which cannot be overridden by the Gover- XIII nor under any of the pretexts suggested by Mr. Campbell, without the grossest violation of law and of official duty. GEORGE Q. CANNON, WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 30, 1880. Oral arguments on the points involved were made by Hon. John R, McBride for Mr. Campbell, and by Hon. W. H. Hooper and John T. Caine, Esq., for Mr. Cannon. The following certificates of the Clerk of the Third Judicial District were filed by Mr. Campbell: UNITED STATES OF eh TERRITORY OF UAH, ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. J I, O. J. Averill, Clerk of the District Court for the Third Judicial Dis- trict, sitting in and for the county and Territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that I have made a diligent search of all the records of said Third Judicial listrict Court as well as of all the records of the First Judicial District Court of said Territory, in my offlce, and in my custody from the organization of said Court, Oct. 6, 1851, up to the present time, and that Iam unable to find any record, in any of said records, of the admission of George Q. Cannon to become a citizen of the United States of America, or any record or order of said Court authorizing the Clerk of said Third District Court, or of said First District Court, to issue a certificate of citizenship to him, said George Q. Cannon. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this 6th day of January, A. D. 1881. [SEAL.] O. J. AVERILL, Clerk. By H. G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. FourtH DAy, DECEMBER 7TH. Court met pursuant to adjournment, officers all present. Journal read. . . R. T. Burton, Deputy Marshal, made return for the summons issued in the case of C. Vrohis & Co. vs. Robert Caldwell, and W. P. Reynolds vs. Alfred B. Lambson, and the subpoenas issued in the case of the People vs. William Sullivan, all endorsed duly served. Clerk issued five subpoenas for witnesses before United States Grand Jury, returnable forthwith. Dimmick B. Huntington was appointed by M. Holman, United States District Attorney, Assistant Interpreter for the Indians, to interpret both before the United States Grand Jury and Court, and he appeared before the Clerk and was duly sworn in as such Interpreter. The United States Grand Jury not being ready to make any present- ments, the Court adjourned until the following morning at eleven o’clock. LEO SHAVER, Judge. TERRITORY OF UTAH, ag COUNTY OF SALT LAKE. : I, O. J. Averill, Clerk of the District Court for the Third Judicial Dis- trict, sitting in and for the county and Territory aforesaid: Do hereby cer- tify that tke above and foregoing is a full, true and perfect copy of the Journal and Minute Book and all entries therein made and appearing on the seventh (7th) day of December, A. D. 1854, of the First Judicial District Court of the Territory of Uiah, as the same appears of record in my office, on page No. 216 of the Journal of said First District Court, and further that 4 XI1V I am the lawful custodian of said record, and authorized by law to certify the same. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Third Judicial District Court of Utah Terri- tory this 5th day of January, A. D. 1881. [SEAL.] O. J. AVERILL, Clerk. By H. G. McMILLAN, Deputy Clerk. There was also presented for inspection the book of Clerk’s certificates of declarations of intention to become citizens, and certificates of citizenship, in which appears what purports to be a copy of the certificate and which is claimed to be the naturalization of Mr. Cannon. Also a reply to the answer of Mr. Cannon, signed Allen G. Pann b ea by John R. McBride, attorney, which reply is as follows: To the Governor of Utah Territory: The law in force in this Territory at the time of George Q. Cannon’s alleged naturalization required: First—That a naturalization only could take place in one of the District Courts. See law of Utah Compilation of 1855. Page 22 Second—A_ statement of the proof in which the person was admitted ‘shall be stated and set forth * * inthe record of the court admitting the applicant; otherwise the same shall not entitle soi to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States.’, (4th P. See. 2, Nat. Laws—Ib. p. 23.) Third—The third section of the ‘‘Act in relation to the judiciary (p. 29, Utah Comp. Laws of 1855) required the clerk to keep a record of the proceed- ings of the Court under the direction of the Judge. He shall from time to time read over all the entries therein in open court, which when correct shall be signed by the Judge’’—— These ‘sections, both of the ited States and the Utah Statutes, make it the duty of the Court and the clerk to make a record of the proceedings, and that record must, to be authentic, be signed by the Judge of the Court, and if a record is not so made in naturalization cases, the party “shall not be deemed a citizen.’’ In the case of George Q. Cannon there is no such re- eord. On the contrary, it appears from a certified copy of the actual record of the court at the time when he claims to have been naturalized, that no such proceeding took place, and it further appears that no such naturaliza- tion proceedings took place either then or at any time. The pretended certificate does not purport to be an exemplification of any record, and it appears that it was the common practice of the clerks to issue naturalization papers here without the proceeding being had before the ‘court or judge at all. They were habitually peddled out over the country to anyone who would pay for them. Such a certificate or statement by a clerk as to the person holding it being a citizen is no more proof of the fact than if he had certified to the holder’s solvency, his general reputation or as to the place of his birth. The law gives no effect to such a certificate—it is void on its face. A clerk may make a copy of a record of the court and certify that it is a true copy, but no instance is known of a clerk being permitted to certify that certain things were done in court—the record must speak for itself—and he authenticates the record. Here then is no record and never has been, and as to this particular part the record shows that the clerk here stated a fact to exist which did not then, nor does it now exist. A clerk might as well issue an execution without any judgment having been rendered against the party. It affords no presumption even of the ex- istence of the fact. To prove the existence of any judgment it must be ex- emplified and then properly authenticated; in other words, where the record > O's is made the evidence, no statement or certificate of itis proof. The authen- ticated copy of it with the signature of the judge and the certificate of the clerk is the only proof which the law recognizes and without which the stat- ute says the party ‘‘shall not be deemed to be a citizen.”’ Mr. Cannon is disqualified to receive votes by a Territorial law, Section 3 page 87, Compiled Laws of 1876. Every vote cast for him is in the language of Mr. Cushing, “thrown away’’ and cannot be counted. Cash L. and Pr., page 66, sec. 176, 178. The result is that Mr. Campbell is entitled to the certificate of election as Delegate to Congress. ALLEN_G. CAMPBELL. By JoHn R. McBRIDE, Attorney. Mr’ Caine for Mr. Cannon, filed a printed answer, which is made part of this paper. (See above.) Mr. McBride, for Mr. Campbell, cites the following authorities: Sec. 3, Chap. Ist, page 29 of Laws of Utah, 1851-1872, Par. 4, Sec. 2, page 23, Laws of Utah, 1851-1872. Spratt vs. Spratt, 4th Peters, 6th Cranch, page 176; Compiled Laws of Utah, page 87; 7th Mass., pages 523, 527; Cushing’s Law and Practice of Leg- islative Assemblies, page 66 and pages 51 and 52. Mr. Caine, for Mr. Cannon, cites the following authorities: Act of Congress organizing the Territory of Utah, passed Sep. 9, 1850. McCrary’s American Law of Elections, pages 151, 167. It is not for me to go behind the returns, to defend the statute con- ferring suffrage upn women in the Territory, or to consider any of the ques- tions growing out of an exercise of suffrage. Call it ministerial, or judicial, or quasi-judicial, it is left only for me to ascertain the law, and to do that which it directs me to do. The Act of Congress passed Sep tember 9th, 1850, establishing the Terri- tory of Uiah, in referring to the election of Delegate to Congress, says: **The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Gover- nor, duly elected, and a certificate thereof shall be given accordingly.”’ The Act of Congress approved June 8, 1872, enacts that the qualifications of voters and of holding office shall be such as the legislatures of Territories hereafter to be organized, as well as those already organized, may prescribe, subject, nevertheless, to the following restrictions; namely: Ist. ‘‘The right of suffrage and of holding office shali be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years, and by those above that age who have declared on oath before a competent court of record their in- tention to become such, and have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,”’ ete. ' Congress therein explicitly determines that ‘‘person,’’ as used in the act of 1850, means a “‘citizen.’’ Under this law the Legislature of Utah has re- stricted the right of voting and of holding office to citizens of the United States, excluding those who have merely delared their intentions to become such. The certificate of the Clerk of the Third District Court, he having the custody of the records, and having examined them, explicitly states, under his seal, that from the organization of the court to the present time, he is ‘‘anable to find any record, in any of said records, of the admission of George Q. Cannon to become a citizen, or any record or order of said court author- izing the clerk of said Third District, or of said First District Court to issue a certificate of admission to citizenship to him, said George Q. Cannon.’’ This must decide my action. The certificate of W. I. Appleby, clerk of the First District Court, is claimed to be the naturalization of Mr, Cannon. The following is a copy:of this paper: XVI CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP OF ONE WHO ARRIVED IN_ THE UNITED STATES BEFORE HE WAS EIGHTEEN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TERRITORY OF UTAH, ss. GREAT SALT LAKE ,COUNTY. United States First District Court for the Territory of Utah: Be it remembered, that on the seventh day of December, A. D. 1854, George Q. Cannon, a subject of Queen Victoria, made application and satis- fied the court that he came to reside inthe United States before he was eighteen years of age; and thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon appeared in open court, and was sworn in due form of law, and on his oath did say, that for three years last past, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce and abjure forever all allegi- ance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever; and thereupon, the court being satisfied by the oaths of Joseph Cain and lias Smith, two citizens of the United States, that the said George Q. Cannon, for one year last past, has resided in this Territory, and for four years previous thereto he resided inthe United States—that during that time he has behaved as aman of good moral character—that he is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order of the inhabitants thereof, admitted him to bea citizen of the same. And thereupon, the said George Q. Cannon was in due form of law sworn to support the Consitution of the United States, and absolutely and entirely to renounce and abjure forever all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State and Sovereignty whatever, and particularly to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, whose subject he heretofore has been. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name, and affixed the seal of said court, this seventh day of De- [L. 8.] cember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four and of the Independence of the United States the seventy-ninth. W. I. APPLEBY. Clerk. TERRITORY OF UTAH, tas SauLt LAKE COUNTY, j "~~ I, Ezra T. Sprague, Clerk of the Supreme Court of said Territory of Utah, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an instrument contained in a certain book received by me froin my predecessor in said office of Clerk, and which remains deposited in iny office. : In testimony “whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and the [L. S.] seal of said court, this 7th day of January, A.D. 1881. E. T. SPRAGUE, Clerk. The record of the court is the only means of ascertaining its judgments and orders. The clerk’s certificate of the judgments and orders of a compe- tent court, and not his individual statements without seal, is the only guide in all cases, and therefore must be in this case. The records of the court fail to make Mr. Cannon a citizen,and he, as J, must stand by the record. Mr. Cannon, under any other circumstances, might, perhaps, acquire citizen- ship by the time his term of office commences, but it is charged in Mr. Campbell's protest, and not denied in Mr. Cannon’s answer, that he is liy- ing in polygamy,a violation of the act of Congress of 1862 making it a crime. This being the case, he is not ‘‘well disposed towards the Govern- a — XVII ment of the United States.’’ Therefore, he ee in Pe taibh, take, the oath of naturalization, and the courts of this Tervis Ory. uniformly anrorce this rule. The House of Representatives, Congr essiynae Record of June 16th, 1874, page 5046, affirmed the same principle in’ House bil, 5679, provid: ng that. delegates in Congress should be 25 years of; age, seven years 4 aitinen, and an inhabitant of such Territory, ‘‘and no suéh:persen, who, is guilty of bigamy or polygamy shall be eligible to a seat as Such’ deloeate.’ SF ong. Tt having been shown that Mr. Cannon is not a citizen, an tRAt, he is in- capable of becoming a citizen, I cannot, under the law, "certify that he is “duly elected,”’ and Mr. Campbell having received the greatest number of votes cast for any citizen, was therefore duly elected and must receive the certificate accordingly. Jam aware that my action on this question is not final. The House is the judge of the qualifications and election of its members, but in the dis- charge of my sworn duty under the law to give the certificate to the person duly elected, I cannot do otherwise than give it to Alen G. Campbell. ELI H. MURRAY. THE CERTIFICATE. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TERRITORY OF UTAH, SS. EXECUTIVE OFFICE. J I, Eli H. Murray, Governor of the Territory of Utah, do declare and certify that at a regular election for Delegate to the Forty-~eventh Congress, held in said Territory on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Novem- ber, A.D. 1880, returns whereof were opened in iny presence by the Secretary of the Territory, Allen G. Campbell was the person, being a citizen of the United States, having the greatest number of votes, and was therefore duly elected as Delegate from said Territory to said Congress, and I do give this certificate accordingly. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused [L.S.] the Great Seal of the Territory to be affixed. Done at Sait Lake City, this eighth day of January. A.D. 1881. Exrt H. Murray, Governor. By the Governor: ARTHUR L, THOMAS, Secretary of Utah Territory. 3 « } CAND (0N'S > - NOTICE OF CONTEST. ee fi WASHINGTON, D. C., January 20, 1881. Allen G. Campbell, Esq.; S1r--T have the honor to notify you that I shall contest your right to hold a Seat in the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, as Delegate from the Territory of Utah, and also” your right either to be sworn or enrolled, or to hold a certificate of election as such Delegate on the following erounds: 1. That the returns of the election of Delega‘e to the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, held on the 2d day of November, 1880, in the several ‘counties of the Territory of Utah, which were prepared and for- warded to the Secretary of the Territory, under Sections 23 and 24 of the Compiled Laws of the Territory of Utah, copies of which returns, marked respectively A. B. C. D, ete., are hereto annexed, showed, as the fact was, that 18,568 votes were legally cast for me at said election; that only 1,357 votes were cast for you, and that only eight votes werefcast for all other eandi- dates, and that I was, therefore, legally elected to said office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, and was also entitled to receive the certificate of election, and to be enrolled and sworn as such Delegate. 2. That said returns showed, as the fact was, that you received less than one-thirteenth of the votes legally cast at the said election, and therefore were not entitled to hold the said Office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, or to be enrolled or sworn as such Delegate, or to receive such certificate of election to said oflice, 3. That the actionjof the Governor of the Territory of Utah in the with- holding the certificate of election from me, and giving it to you, was illegal and fraudulent. Very respectfully, GEORGE Q. CANNON. EXHIBIT ‘A.’ CouUNTY AND PROBATE CLERK’S OFFICE, ) BEAVER COUNTY, BEAVER CiTy, UTAH, | Noy. 5, 1880. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TERRITORY OF UTAH, Ss CoUNTY OF BEAVER. T, William Fotheringham, County Clerk of Beaver County, do hereby certify that at a general election held in the several precincts of Beaver XIX County, on the second day of November, A. D. 1880, for the purpose of elect- ing a Delegate to Congress, the results of said election are as follows, to-wit: FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. WRC TAC WE CAR LEEBOND Hactacd dic ras Gita cigs vebence Gece Gots an eahls doce de ce seaahs dus 9 heifvale 515 votes. FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Allen G. Campbell............: Mediteicee etn weelene theks reine cd vaneeadncee cays 222 votes. FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Uma PEUMNON ARES ESEC Rite Os oo Sen Cin occ angie SUR TEL ee a cVanderh sraserecene scissile OLOL Witness my hand, and the seai of the County Court of Beaver County, this Fifth day of November, A. D. 1880. [SEAL. ] WILLIAM FOTHERINGHAM, County Clerk. HABIT BYOB.” Returns of the General Biennial Election heid in the various precincts of Box Elder County, Utah ‘Territory, on Tuesday, Nov. 2, 1880: FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Geo. Q. Cannon ‘recelvediiissc..i0 oi essiheew ess seisets cbeeee se ldee socsoeeesS00 VOLES! AAI Sire AMI DOLE POCOIVGU icant vai desea ckucids o°Sse4 Woaevversrectin dvoweqeete 73 votes. I, James Bywater, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy and abstract of the returns of the General Biennial Election held in Box Elder County, Utah, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, as appears of record in my office, showing the offices to be filled, the persons voted for, and the number of votes each person received. Witness my hand and seal of court, at Brigham City, this Seventeenth day of November, A. D. I880. {SEAL.] JAMES Bywater, County Clerk. OXHISIT: C7! OFFICE OF CLERK OF COUNTY COURT FOR CACHE ) COUNTY, IN THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, LOGAN City, Nov. 3, A. D. 1880. J Abstract of votes polled in Cache County, on Tuesday, Noy. 2d, A. D. L880, for Delegate to Congress for the Territory of Utah; FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. Geo rire Gs Carina pEOCGINGU itr seek csitecnsceccesecnsasye ekceoeerug tot. VULOss FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. PAREN PORT TLL FODOL VOU nulencrscgs farses soreevese ca ceresets envy perverse VOLOSs XX TERRITORY OF UTAH, oy COUNTY OF CACHE. | ~~" I hereby certify the foregoing to be a correct copy of the names of the persons voted for, and the number of votes each has received for Delegate to Congress, at the election held November 2d, A. D. 1880, in Cache County. [SEAL. ] JAMES T. HAMMOND, Clerk of County Court for Cache County. By W. W. MAUGHAN, Deputy Clerk. To the Hon. Secretary of the Territory. 1H Bee ABSTRACT OF ELECTION. Names of persons voted for and the Names of precinevts and number offices they are intended to fill. of votes polled in each. FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. South Precinct. t George Q. Cannon.......... Secepdide da ves Bey ahiss sik cok a cat allie wbiind ranean gee 91 votes. Allen: GAC amp bell sscas.cctsypeanes Moos scesniiettewieass see aneracks sing penta ecnases VOLOSs West Precinct. TOOTRS Ol CANNOT mresetecatas cori evisads Seesdts nk clonen sip vanea eicas tented .. 45 votes. A Men irs Cami pOGliseccctctstetess eee’ oe Siusoast cooks saaet tee sere ember emeaere 1 vote. Bountiful Precinct. Heorge Q. CamMMon...... sesesess ovscreses veress Dae eee Scape ees Danke ars ceticee 170 votes. Allen G. Campbell...... Bons alevaasha ps dean Gacabee ena etcaatsn Ghakea sen es ace cme 8 votes. Centreville Precinct. George: Qs Cannons) iicvssp=cscestes Say eesens- wate ctees WV aLMeN ieee ts Sea semneN tee 88 votes. Allen G.:\ Gam piel nccc5 setathesedevasscvasensentaceesns a cdeteabbekbetvetatvaceet 2 votes. Farmington Precinct. (Feor gee GC). CANNON cies siescscssiess vos cniseetmateuses sunranesheatstecseaener! 137 votes. Allen G. Campbell isda ive.csecsinesscounun censoees soosseccetunsaithesghinansenecs 0 mmanE mm Kaysville Precinct, George Q. Cannon......... weldeebat acepucvsepaebay 4aatccaesnensgataspasaatments 247 votes. South Weber Precinct. George Qs Cannon caik..apstrcrateey eee: Sere cas ep rere er 21 votes. Hooper Precinct. } George Q. Cannon...... Ticee apa avaee opens ie aathiatty «ate ree Sancti yannsaveeeees 51 votes. bo Allen G. Campbell........ Sapte seahptite ete Raven sta ar omnahas tepaseae ats ereeeeaa eee ..6 votes. Total votes received. George Q. Cannon....... Pete auay brane evga sd douunys Deaamtecd euatean bapprte aes 850 votes. Allon G. Campbell acter stan cheuvevecetesastanenatte’s asc oenisrate Uae tintin tere 26 votes. TERRITORY OF UTAH, ae CouNTY OF DAVIs. } ~~’ T, Joseph Barton, County Clerk of the County of Davis, Territory of Utah, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and cor- rect abstraet of the returns of an election held in the several precincts, in said Davis County, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, XXI and the names of the persons voied for, and the number of votes each has received for Territorial Offices. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County Court of said County, the 3d day of November, A. D. 1880. [SEAL.] JOSEPH BARTON, County Clerk. BEE BI Tei? CASTLE DALE, EMERY Country, UTAH TER., November 8, 1880. Hon. A. LT. Thomas, Secretary_of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Ter.: No election returns from Emery County. EMANUEL BAGLEY. PNT EB iS i Abstracts of the election .returns of the Biennial Election held in the various precincts of Iron County, Utah Territory, November 2d, A. D. 18890, for the purpose of electing a Delegate to Congress: No. of votes polled. Parowan Precinct for Geo. Q. Cannon........ ARR Se ihn eee prer ees terested bie: iy oy “A. G. Campbell ..c...0.: ivi diteMagtesee epamveseRaecetees £74 ae! Cedar sé SP Girt ey CULL TIA reacts tey ok wana Revered ti eee teneelta bio L Panguitch ‘ dy ois ania) Rede ee are vals seneeey are, Gsreatane ds 9} Paragoonah ‘‘ “ es Bay etic’ Mace RE PEE a aNd 49 Escalante - oa ib a Mpa eeacese Bn -3 DAI inctudsseones 58 Cannonville ‘ Be ie Ve Be cots datiscaaes ven kek emt tatee vais call aL Hillsdale ss “ ES os seatesesaaeiats Be SS he EEN CO aa Keddcet Ao Summit - Se ds “4 aeatenaids aves MEctnssucteer ties care vecstel Making a total of 495 votes polled in Iron County, 491 for George Q. Can- non, and 4 for A. G. Campbell. We, Edwin Dalton, Probate Judge, and John E. Dalley, County Clerk in and for Iron County, Utah Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct abstract of the election returns of the Biennial Elec- tion held in the various precincts of Iron County, Utah Territory, Nov. 2d, A. D. 1880, for the purpose of electing a Delegate to Congress. In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands, and affixed the seal of the County Court of Tron County, this Tenth day of November, A. D. 1880. [SEAL.] EDWARD DALTON, Probate Judge. JOHN E. DALLEY, County Clerk. XXIT EX HIBLE “Gi? Abstract of the General Election for a Delegate from the Territory of Utah to the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, held in Juab County, Utah Territory, on Tuesday, the Second day of November, 1880. Name of Precinct. Nuiaber of votes polled for George Q. Cannon. for Allen G. Campbell. IN GPU diorneas ncvavencaxs¥ veasspasseecteaies DOD > doves ssoheeps cenwseks susan ded'eh. bag anaewe cane ewe 1 LGVEN csctecascssturteasescee
  • ah TAR eaa Ea Beigel od a toret RE qAREER aN ARR Rae FERED ti etplaee Ag alte Mare aka tans BP RMR oe Great iby RAM 9 i 1 6 J eae Tels th eager re oa aE on, ES oie Biel WTR has ol Lem eee C8) Sari AB eRe Se ree ee N ETE Cree ccs cae cs on sche r CHOTA TUS, BRL cuties nd pach de caddie tensaen naka taba OPT OC ese, Lax cactanccerscntisesasan vavnces bg Ent Eb Petaeg ose aS eae te dak Ve cacundas beens REIL IY ie adg's video ses wacassedscazswedses Mist saratess dts cotecvecciteassencs secs crias MPETTG CPR ree ees evr ents tevades ioscvevceaaencencd Bere tiantered nactetes ie Ly ereeirery ESTE ee arenas cea baavaneedastes ceovseterteaser By. dae epee bare. i ar eyes ere apes SER ca) We bdcce aca reeca «tc cksualees ace 713 176 TERRITORY OF UTAH, ae COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, . TI, Adolphus R. Whitehead, County Clerk of Washington County, hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct abstract of the returns of the election held in Washington County, Utah Territory, Tuesday, November 2d, A. D. 1880. Witness my hand and the seal of said county, this Kighth day of November, A. D. 1880. [SEAL.] ADOLPHUS R. WHITEHEAD, County Clerk, EXHIBIT “VU,” COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE, | WEBER COUNTY, UTAH, | L. M. RICHARDS, Clerk. if OGDEN, NOV. 3, 1880. i Hon Arthur L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah Territory: Srir—The following are the names of the persons voted for, and the num- XXX ber of votes each received for the office named, at an election held in Weber County, Utah Territory, on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, to-wit: FOR DELEGATE TO CONGRESS. George Q. Cannon reCOiVed..........:0.sccessbescaset0 ssanestbsvsstsecsessed OOO WOLORS Allen G. Campbell received esses: sscadpdpdededaccuantect shtde.teutearsree eal O # I hereby certify that the above abstract is true and correct. Very respectfully, [SEAL. ] L. M. RICHARDS, Clerk County Court of Weber County. By C. UC. RicHarps, Deputy Clerk. EXHIBIT ‘V,” Abstract of votes polled at Brown’s Park Precinct, Uintah County, Utah, November 2, 1880. ASHLEY, UINTAH County, UTAH TERRITORY, ) November 13, 1880. This certifies that at a general election held at Brown’s Park Precinct, Uintah County, Utah Territory, on November 2, 1880, the whole amount of votes polled was 6, Office to be voted for—Delegate to Congress. Name of candidate, George Q. Cannon. We find upon counting said votes from thereturns of said election, the whole nuinber of votes cast was six, of which George Q. Cannon received ‘six for the office of Delegate to Congress. We certify the above to be correct. [SEAL] THOMAS BINGHAM, Probate Judge. ; W. C. Britt, County Clerk. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, } TERRITORY OF UTAH, - SS. SECRETARY’S OFFICE. J I, Arthur L. Thomas, Secretary of Utah Territory, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbered one to twenty-seven inclusive, contain full, true and correct copies of all the returns received from the several counties, of the election held on the Second day of November, A. D. 1880, for Delegate to Congress, from the Territory of Utah. Attest: My hand and the Great Seal of the Territory, this Highth day of January, A. D. 1881. [SEAL.] ARTHUR L. THOMAS, Secretary of Utah Ter. I hereby acknowledge due service of the within notice of contest and exhibits by receiving a duplicate of within signed by contestant, this (4th) day of February, A. D. 1881, A, G, CAMPBELL. 7 4 CAMPBELLS KEPLY. SALT LAKE Ciry, UrTau, February 26th, 1881. George Q. Cannon, Lsq.: Srtr.—To your notice of January 20th, 1881, served on me on the 4th day of the present month, to the effect that you will contest my right to hold a seat in the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States as Delegate from the Territory of Utah, ete., I have the honor to answer in respect to the facts alleged by you, and to state the grounds on which I rest the validity of my election as follows: 1. I admit that returns of the election of Delegate to the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, held on the 2nd day of November, 1880, in the several counties of the Territory of Utah, were made to the Secretary of said Territory, of which copies are annexed to your notice and referred to therein as marked respectively, A, B, C, D, etc. But I deny that said returns showed, or that the fact was, that 18,568 votes were legally cast for you at said election, or that you were legally or otherwise elected to said office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-seventh Congress, or enti- tled to receive the certificate of election, or to be enrolled, sworn, or other- wise in any manner recognized as such Delegate. 1 deny that said returns showed, or that the fact was, that I received less than one-thirteenth of the votes legally cast at said election, or that I was not entitled to hold the said office of Delegate from the Territory of Utah in the Forty-Seventh Congress, or to be enrolled and sworn as such Delegate, or to receive the certificate of election to said office. I deny that the action of the Governor of the Territory of Utah in with- holding the certificate of election from you, and in giving it to me, was ille- gal or fraudulent. And [allege as grounds of the foregoing denial and of my claim that my election was valid, as follows: 1. Nostatute, Federal or Territorial, required or authorized said returns of said election to be placed before the Governor of said Territory; or that authorized or required him to open or inspect said returns as the whole or any part of the evidence, on which he was required to determine the result of said election, and this state of the law has been judicially declared in said Territory. 2. Said returns do not disclose the names, sex or qualifications of the voters whose votes are therein aggregately stated. 3. A large number of the voters who voted for you were females, and therefore not qualified to vote for members of the Legislative Assembly in said Territory, and consequently not qualified to vote for Delegate to Con- gress at said election. The number of such illegal votes can only be estimated, but such votes were given in all the counties in relatively large numbers, and are an undistinguishable part of the votes mentioned in each of said returns. 4, You were not at the date of said election eligible or qualified, nor capable of being made eligible or qualified to be elected to, or to serve in, said office of Delegate, because you were borna subject of Great Britian, XX XIT and had never been naturalized as a citizen of the United States; you are not aman of good moral character; you are not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, nor well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; you have been for many yearsa polygamist, living and cohabiting with four women as wives, to whom you have joined yourself by a pretended ceremony of marriage; you do not loyally yield assent and obedience to the act of Congress against polygamy in the Terri- tories; you have for many years last past publicly endeavored to incite others to violate that statute in the Territory of Utah—therefore all the votes given for you at said election are void. 5. Atthetime of said election on the second day of November, 1880, you were known throughout the Territory of Utah to bean alien and not eligible to said office of Delegate. All the persons voting for you were aware, and had full notice, that you were an alien unnaturalized, and disqualified to hold any office under the laws of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof. 6. Iama native born citizen of the United States and qualified by age and residence in said Territory to be elected at said election to said office of Delegate to the House of Representatives of the Forty-seventh Congress of the United States, and besides eight scattering votes cast at said election, I received all the legal votes given at said election for said office of Delegate in the Forty-seventh Congress from the Territory of Utah; that on the 8th day of January, 1881, the Governor of said Territory, in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, and in the due and regular exercise of the power in him vested, did declare and certify under his hand and the great seal of said Territory, that I was the person having the greatest num- ber of votes, and therefore duly elected as Delegate from said Territory to said Congress. Respectfully Yours, A. G. CAMPBELL. I hereby admit service of the within and foregoing notice to me directed by a copy delivered to me personally at Washington this the fifth day of March, A. D. 1881. GEO, Q. CANNON: CANNONS EVIDENCE. May 28th, 1881. Elias Smith sworn for George Q. Cannon. EXAMINED BY ARTHUR BROWN, ESQ. Q. Are you a citizen of the United States? A. Iam. Q. Native born or naturalized? A. Native born. O. How many years have you lived in the Territory of Utah? A. Nearly thirty. Q. Are yon acquainted with George Q. Cannon? A.Iam. O. How many years have you been acquainted with him? A. I think I made my first acquaintance with him in the year 1843. Q. Whereabouts? A. In the County of Hancock, State of Illinois, City of Nauvoo. Q. How long did you know him there? A. I knew him there from that time until the spring of 1846, the exact date I don’t remember when we parted. Q. Did you know him here in Utah? A. I did. QO. When did you first know him here? A. 1 first saw him here to the best of my remembrance in the month of November or December, 1854. Q. When did you yourself first come to Utah? A. I came to Utah in 185 51—September 28th. Q. Did you in 1854 go with him to the District Court then presiding over Salt Lake County? A. To the best of my remembrance I did. Q Who was the Judge then presiding over that District Court? A. That is a matter I am not as positive about as I wish I was. I will have to refer to records. Q. Well, what would be your recollection now? A. From my recollec- tion, and from the information I obtained and derived within the last two or three years—it is a matter I had not thought anything about then—my impression is that Leonidas Shaver was. I once stated to the best of my knowledge that Judge Styles was here, but that remark was based upon a matter connected with Judge Snow’s history here, I was of the opinion that he succeeded him. * Q. Your impression is that Judge Shaver was then here? A. Yes, sir. O. Are you positive you went with Cannon to Court? A. That Tam positive of. Q, What would be your impression about its being on or about the 7th of December, 1854? My impression is from the information I have derived from looking’ at records in my possession and records I have made myself, that it was not far from that time, but the exact date I cannot find. Q. Of course you would not remember the exact date frcm your recol- lection? A. No sir. Q. But your recollection would be that it was in the neighborhood of that time? ‘A. Yes, sir; it was a short time after he arrived from Califor- nia. 8 XXXIV Q. On that day when you went with Cannon, was Court open doing business? A. It was. Q. What was your errand with Mr. Cannon there that day? A. Mr. Cannon on his arrival here from California Campbell’s counsel object to the form of the question—let him state what he did. Q. State what was your errand there—what did you go for? A. I went there as a witness for Mr. Cannon, that I had been acquainted with him from boyhood when he came to this country. Q. You went there as a witness to his naturalization? A. Yes sir. O. When you arrived in Court, what did you do, or what was done in your hearing relative to that matter j ? Objected to, as what was done in Court must bea matter of record, and cannot be proved by any parol testimony. A. I arrived there in Court, and the usual proceedings -— Judge McBride for Campbell—State what was done? A. Mr. Cannon presented himself there to become a citizen of the United States, the usual oath was administered to me in relation to his residence here, how long had I known him. Q. You were sworn, you remember that? A. Yes sir. QO. Who asked you the questions, if anvbody? A. I could not posi- tively say whether it was the Judge or the Cierk. I think it was the Clerk asked the questions. Q. Do you remember whether you stated your acquaintance with Can- non and what you knew about his living in this country? A. I told my acquaintance just exactly as it occurred. Q. Was any other witness there besides you? A. There was. O. Who was it?) A. One Joseph Cain. O. How long had you known him? A. About the same time I had Mr. Cannon. I don’t know which of them I made the acquaintance of first. Q. Do you know whether he was, or whether he stated at that time that he was a citizen of the United States? A. Mr. Cain? O--Yes. “Ay He so Stated, O. Do you know whether he was sworn or not? A. He was. Q. Was he enquired of? All this part of the testimony is taken under the objection of counsel for Mr. Campbell. Q. Was he enquired of after being sworn? A. He was. O. Was Mr. Cannon enquired of? A. He was. O. After you had both been enquired of, did the Court say or do any. thing—the Judge of the Court, I mean, by the Court? Objected to on the same round? Agay 65 Sit. Q. What did he say or do—what action did he announce? A. He directed the Clerk to administer the oath to Mr Cannon. Q. Did he say anything as to what oath it was? Or what order was made in the premises? A. "Now I could not positively state the exact words. Q. Did he in substance say whether he declared him a citizen of the United States? A. I so understood him. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cannon thereupon did take the oath? A. He did take the usual oath of allegiance, renouncing all allegiance to any foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty, especially Vic- toria, Queen of Great Britain. XXXV Q. Do you know whether this Joseph Cain, who was a witness, with you, is living or not? A. He is not. OF How do you know otherwise? A. I helped inter his body in the ground. Q. Do you know whether this Leonidas Shaver, who was at one time judge of this court, is living or not? A. He is not. Q. How do you know otherwise? h — > «a. .., wea 7 “4 ‘a a i = . ‘oa ei ses ‘ 4 “ Ne Lee Oe ey pe . f @ . . > é * Ps > ~ ‘ ‘ ’ ? te as Y thd ‘ oa 43 ‘ . te. y te te t “ - P, - ¢ 4 a . ee " 2% ¢ « Car + ‘ ’ A ‘ ¥ ‘ tr a . Piers” a 5 . e > * e ? \ f . ‘ . Rod. e Ry, ., * ; uP EN ye i tn, +S ail . a ; cheese ' : ie Bi AOeaE » a : x 4 7 %? oie | ‘ ¢ eine F y ta. , ee a oe “y EF e i i ‘a. . . has a4 ; F ‘ 2 ye t > : Wi ose} i; j VEG ae | ' ' ved bre | : es eh , ett a fa og) we aye ‘ ; ’ PO Brahe, wei aT wal BME 7 ‘ cnipes j i } Aiiee Pak d “i Laat he. “4a CAMS OVER PER AIRSE tal GER sv oa aay } ygt 1f;: av throes Ss ; ays “\ 4dr ndtet: 49 st 44 aie ‘ a. t Mato be ‘eras i ae s fad S030. 2: inthe Ape vga’ ; ee Tk LAN Stes 0) Ri UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS- A Whi 0112