The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1875-10-16

7 a resolution which was, and is in the wore
and figures following, to wit;
=, Here the speaker read Tie resolution cal
ing the election
: These gentlemen claim il is necessary tina
9 this question should have been submitted b
the common council this question of mino
, ity representaion-and yet they have fonn
no fault with this submission Of the questio
of the adoption Of the act as the charter.
YOU will examine that resolution, II does nc
. pretend tn submit the question, but il fixes III
, oath of April, 1879, when that question Sh0
be suj,aitted to the vote Of the electors at a
election. 1t points 10 the time of the submit.
mission itself-thc manner in which the thin
will come before the voters ut the time whe
! they vote on election day. That is the tim
, of the submission and if it is not the tim
, of the subm ission, there is no time there. |
, il be necessary, in order that this question
should be brought before the electors 10 vote
, that the city council should say "we hereb.
submit the question to the voters" then Their
was no submission of the act to the voters.
The first point will make in relation t
this question of minority representation IS
that it is n collateral and independent qucs
ton, entirely separate from the adoption o
the charter, nnconnccted with it, except tina
it was provided by law that it should be sub
mitted and voted upon at the same time |
so, then the validity Of the election on ont
question in no wise can depend upon thu
election upon the other.
Suppose statute were passed that provid
ed for an election in given town for justice
of the peace and constable on 4 Civ day
and il was made the duty of the officers Il
give notice Of such election, and they omitted
to give notice of the constable's election bu
j did give notice of the election of the Justice
and the people voted for and elected. the jus
tice of the peace. Now suppose a quo war
ranto were sued out In such case asai nst I'll,
justice of the peace and it should be sale
''your election is entirely void" because the
law requires that n constable should be elect
ed at the same time, would any court gravely
entertain such proposition! 1t seems to mt
the questions are exactly analogous. 1t l:
suggested in the case at bar that the voters
would be controlled in their votes on the ques
ton of the adoption of the charter by the
question whether minority representation was
to be adopted or not AS was stated in tina,
part of my brief read by Judge Lawrence
| answer here: No voter could know whcth.
er minority representation was going to be
adopted or rejected. When he cast his vote
for the charter he voted for the charter wheth-
er minority representation be voted up or
down. He voted for the adoption of that
charter, leaving the question to be determined
by the people whether it should he with or
without minority representation. The act pro-
vides that il not adopted at that time, it may
be adopted at another time. Suppose these
gentlemen are right when they say that the
notice and the resolution of TIE common
council did not bring the question Of mnori-
ty representation before the voters to vote
upon, and hence il was not before them. II
merely follows that the voters of Chicago
have said by their votes that they are willing
to take this charter without minority repre-
sentation. There may be a great many men
who would like i. better to have minority
representation in 1t, and would have voted
for the charter with minority representation,
but did not withoutit These men could only
have increased the majorlties for the charter
if it had been in l.. If those were in favor
of minority representation they would have
voted for the charter, according to REALTORS
position, had it been submitted, and without
the advantages Of being enamoured by this
new mode of representation majority Of
voters voted for it. If voters were opposed
to minority representation, they have never
ihcless voted for n charter by which it may
yet be adopted.
Again, assume even that the question
of minority representation is, by the statute,
an essential part Of this election, essential to
its validity, in that case | say that the statute
imposes no duty on that subject to be perform
ed by the common council or the mayor.
The gentlemen have presented divers cases
that have not the time to discuss now, where
certain things were omitted which were re-
Quired by the statute and were not done, and
the election was for that cause held void but
in every single instance it will be found that
those things were expressly provided as duties
of the officers. They cannot find q single
case-they have not produced one-where an
election was held VOID by reason Of the
failure of public officer to perform some
duty which was imposed upon him merely
by implication. 1t is only where the statute
is express where that rule has been held toI
apply. Take this case in Iowa where the
statute provided that town might vote to-
make donations to a railroad company, but
at tine same time ii did So 1t was provided by
the statute that it should also vote to levy a.
tax adequate to pay the interest on it and
finally pay the principal, and then the statute
expressly provided that these questions
should be presented together and both should
be posted up at the election. The election
upon the donation, without a vote for the tax,
was held VOID.
"hyy Because the statute required that
both of them should be posted up and the
first should not be done without the second.
This statute does not say that the common
council shall submit dis question. 1t does
not say the mayor shall submit il 1t does not
say how it is 10 be submitted. La point of
fact II was submitted. The submission of the
question of the adoption OF the act takes
place on the day the people vote Tor it, just as
the resolution of the council i'll this case says
that it shall be submitted to the voters on the
23d ofAprl 1875 BY tho language the reso
luton, that is the day it was submitted. 1t does
not say the submission shall come before the
notice of the election. The council say by
their resolution the act shall be submitted 10!
the voters on The 23d of April. The law says
The question of minority representation ShdHI
be submitted at the same time-that is on the
day of election.
1t is said the voters had not thirty days
notice. The Mount Norris case is conclusive
upon this question. There, the statute was
express, that the notice should state fully the
objects of the election. There is no such eX