The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1875-08-12

those ln1nAgug the election, People
w Brauham, Cnl. IA. II IL also pre-
sumed that all those who did not see
n 10 vvlo, ucqucaced IN the nc
ton Of those who did vote,
and accordingly are equally bound ana
concluded by the election. state w
Binder, IS Mo. lJD. when the net re-
uuircd "a majority Of the voters OF the
county" to be in favor of the tax to
be valid, the test Is, the number Of
votes actually east no other evidence
Of the number Of voters Will heal
lowed, Haiess the act ctprce6ig dimaS Il.
I.ouisyllle and Nashville Railroad ~
Davidson county, SIeed, (Ienn.) 63H
Elections arG TO be determined by the
majority Of the ballots east, and not TO
be set aside on account Of the meagre-
ness Of the vote, without distinct and
circumstantlal allegations Of error,
fraud, violence or Illegally, dYtc'iHg
Hc rcsWk Angustin vs. EgglestOn, T.
La. An. $685. Where n City Govern
ment il required to obtain u vote of
twO-,hirds OF the qualified voters Of
city in order to create debt, it II suili-
cient to obtain II vote Of two-thirds Of
those actually voting State vs. Mayor
of ST. Louis, 81 Mo. 270. Unless the
law under which the election is held,
expressly requires mare, IL plurality OF
votes Gust Is sufficient TO elect, not
withstanding these may constitute but
"A small portion Of those who are EN-
titled to vote, and the voters generally
may have failed TO take notice Of the
law requiring the election. Coolcy'8
Com Linn go. HcD II the mdjoHW
crprcsay dissent, pet i they do not rOic
the election Gy The minority WW 6c rdijd
Oldknow vs. wainwright, w. 81. 223
Rex W. FoXcroft, 2 Burr, 1917 cited
with approval in First Parish in Sad.
bury W Stearns, u pick. iiE. In Rex
vs. Withers (reierrcd to in Rex VS. Fox,
GOft, there were eleven electors, six
protested against proceeding and did
not vote; the candidate receiving the
other five votes was declared 10 bC
duly elected, and the court held that
the six virtually consented to his elec-
ton.
Inc question, in the construction Of
both statutory and constitutional pro-
visions, would hardly now seem to nd
init Of discussion, 80 strongly is IL nf'
lirmed by the gre0tcurrent of Judicial
decisions, and the customs Of the c0un-
try. And many Of the constitutions
of those States, which contain proyis-
ions of this character We're framed
under the light, and have attached to
thnm the Significance, di these decis-
ions and GGstnmJ. The present Com
stltuilon Of Texas, a, j., 4 80, in pro-
viding for amendments 10y Legislative
enactment, thereafter to he submitted
to n vote of the people, says, and if,
thercupon, 1t shall appear that amVOW-
" q those rOtiHg upon proposed
amendments, have voted in favor Of
such amendments; n subsequent nat,
ilicatioI 10y the succeeding Legislatures,
makes them n part Of the Constitution.
Showing that the Convention which
framed the Constitution, construed the
general requirement "of u majority Of
the electors Of a Stnte,n to mean ma
j0rity Of those voting, aud not Il ma
jOr!ty Of all Che electors. And this ON
II provision for amending the IOHsti-
tuition itself 1t may bc said, this is
an express constitutional provision, OF
''hlPN w Wv WIN bllIllS III WV l'tl wv
ular instance, but having no force as n
general rule, or IA II construction of II
general principle, Twenty-Five other
States have almost precisely similar
provisions IN their Constitutions. Now
judicial construction upon like Cunsti-
tutionul provisions, had established
the same principle, before the udop-
tons of many OF these Constitutions,
where, under some of the COnstitI-
lions, certain votes can only be carried
by II HtGjOWB Of electors voting iavura-
bly,, this must be understood 10 mean
u maJorlsy of those voting at the clec-
ton on any question. TAYLOR vs.. Tay-
lor, 10 Mimi. 1917. And the courts have
held it to be II safe rule of construc-
ton, that, If when framing the organ
lie law of u state, the Convention
throught proper to borrow provisions
nom the Constitutions Of other States.
which provisions have already rGcciv-
ed Il judicial construction, they ADOPT
cd the provision In view OF such con-
stuction, and acquiesred in its cor
rectness. People vs.. Coleman, A. Cal,
-lB; Acknowledgement vs.. Rrunst, 3
Wis. 7S7; De Cardova vs.. City of Calves.
ton, 1, Tex, 4l9.
In all such questions, the point of
enquiry is, me WW IF the electors, as
manifested dy their 6ddotS. Cooiey's
Con. Linn. GA, And the tests upon this
are plain and simple, and not easily to
be misunderstood. What makes a
valid election? Time and place are of
the substance OF every election. Dick
Ky w. ilurlhurt, s. Cal. 3l3. Held ina
manner contormable to the law. By
the proper officers This determines
its validity. Mckinney w. VConncr,
~, Tex. II; Satterlee W.. San Francisco,
D, Cal. 3l4. And to establish title to
an elective Office, that claimant re-
ceiVed n majority, or plurality, Of dH
the LHJW rates cost tOr candidates.
Fish vs.. ColIens, n, La. An. 2S7. The
ballot better evidence than the tally
list. People vs.. Holden, 2S Cal. l23.
1t is respectively suggested that no
analogy exists between the rules gov
erninga popular election and those
governing parliamentary or legislative
votes. The vote of the citizen, at
popular election, Is The exercise of soy.
ereiSnty. There is no power compell-
ing him to vote at all, or in anywise
controlling the direction of his ballot.
a member of The Legislature exercises
u delegated power conferred upon him
by the citizen ut n popular election. If
within the House when question Is
put, he Is compelled to vote, unless the
House, for special reasons, shalt excuse
him. Jeilerson's Man. l43 10 vote
Tor or against n measure, and to vote |
N'd eoce His every word and act ia
governed by established parliamentary
rules, and all of his powers are limited |
by the Constitution of his State.
The objection of the News seems to
assume, that every man who failed to
vote was opposed to Convention,
ana would have voted against one,