The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1881-08-25

Iion of it. but as it Is so enacted we
must consider the question in the COM
DleX form presented by statute.
1t is perfectly clear that it was the in
tentiOn of the legislature that the people
fthe state, that is, all the voters at the
polls, should have the right to express
themselves on the question of whether or
not the medical department should be To-
Gated at a different point from the main
university, because this question is to be
| determined by vote of the people, and
not by the vote of q portion ofthe people,
or OF sucn of them as held particular
views about the proper location of the
university.
And it is expressly enacted that the
| question of the location of the medical
| department shall be submitted to the peo-
pie and voted On separately from the pro-
| position for the location of the main uni
versity.
Here, then, are three separate ques-
| tions at least, on which the people of
Texas are TO decide.
l. On the location of the entire uniYer-
| sity.
2. On the question of severance of the
medical department.
| g. On the location of the medical de-
partment if severed.
And fourth question may probably
| arise as necessary corollary from the
three preceding, that Is
4. On the location OF the main
university, as it is termed in the law, that
is,the university proper without the medi-
| cal department.
In order to give to every voter the right
| contemplated by the law of full and fair
| expression of opinion on the whole SUBJ
| ject, in all its details, it would seem that
he should certainly have an opportunity
to place upon his ticket the answers to
4 Ill
of these questions. From the wording of
the law ana the constitution referred to,
| and the context. there can be no doubt as
| to the propriety of each voter voting for
| or against severance and separately for
the location of the entire university, and
for the location of the medical depart
ment. Then, in case he votes for Il sever
| ance, scarcely any one will deny that he
should have the right to vote for the loca-
| ton of the main university, but if one
class Ofvoters is to have this right, should
| it not be allowed to all? Some voter
may entertain the view that the entire
university should be located at A., and be
| opposed to 4 severance of the medical de-
partment, but think that in the event of
| severance being carried that the
medical department shall be located at b,
| and the main university, without the
| medical department, ut G. 1fsuch voters
| there be they should not be wholly or
partially disfranchised. 1t is just as i'm
| poftant in the view of the law, which is
declared by its title to be ''An act to es-
tablish the university of Texas" to locate
the medical department and the main
university, if divided, as it is to locate
the university entire. In fact, the entire
university cannot be located without locat-
| ing It's departments. And the law itself
deals in hypothesis and presents the
| questions in alternate forms. Then,
what can the voter do but respond to the
requirements of the law and cast his bal
| lot accordingly?
But the very fact that it is clearly IN
tended by the legislature that, in the
event the people so express them
selves at the polls. the medical depart
main university and that the law pro-
vides that the location of this depart
| ment at a different place shall be deter
| mined by separate ballot involves the
! necessary sequence that the main uni
versity, without the medical department,
shall also be located by separate vote
of the people, and that this question
should also be presented to them This
matter was never intended to be left to
inference and deductions. No one has a
right to suppose that because a man
might prefer one place for the entire uni
versity he would prefer the same place
for the main university if the medical
|
of fact many places have announced
themselves as candidates for the entire
university, the medical department and
the main university respectively, as their
citizens and friends deemed them suitable
for the one or the other. And if any per-
son should deem the same place suitable
both for the entire university, and the
main branch, if severed, he can
easily so state by his ballot.
Then in the interest of free ballot,
and from a fair construction of the law,
taking the whole together, and being
guided by the cardinal rule of construc.
tion that the intent of the legislature
should govern if it can be ascertained,
it is clear that these four propositions
should be, or at least may be when de-
sired by the voter, placed upon each
ticket in something like this form
l. For the location of the entire uni
versity,
.. For the location of the medical de-
university proper (or against the same. >
3. For the location of the medical de-
partment of the university,
SABINE PASS.
4. For the location of the main univer'
sity without the medical department,
GAINESVILLE.
Of course any voter could vote fol
the same point for the three if he
chose and could also vote for or against a
severance. 1t might be urged that by
such a form of ticket you give each
voter the right to vote twice, but on a
close, scrutiny of the ticket and mo.
mentS reflection it will be seen that such
is not the case. his vote for DALLAS
would not count unless the people voted
to locate the entire university at one place
or in other words unless severance was de.
feated, and his vote for GAINESVILLE
would not count unless the people voted
to locate the medical department and the
main university at different places, or un-
less severance was carried. But it is said
that this gives him an alternative vote,
and that is exactly what the statute in.
tends for it provides for separate vote
on the location OF the medical department;
and the vote cast for SABINE PASS as in
the above ticket could not be counted eX-
cept in the Alternative or contingency that
a severance was carried, or in the lam
guage OF the law, in case the medical de-
partment by vote of the people should
be located at a different point from the
university proper. Lookh g at the ques-
tion thus as it seems the legi lature viewed
it,all difficulty vanlshes from the balloting,
the making the returns and the counting
of the votes. Every voter expresses his
views fully and explicitly without leav-
|
all counted as cast and the result declared
accordingly. This is the simplest and
best form that can be devised under the
statute and it really involves no more
cOmpleXity than voting for four different
offices on the same ticket when there are
several candidates for each.
! A parallel case to this contingent ticket
is found in the adoption of the present
constitution, when an entire set of Off
GERS from governor down was voted for
subject to the contingency that the con-
stitution should be adopted. If the con-
! stitution had been defeated all these votes
| would have been lost and no one elected.
In submitting the present amendment
to the judiciary article suppose the legis-
lature had provided that full bench of
seven judges should be elected and that
| the amendment was to be voted on at a
regular election for judges of the supreme
| court; now can any one doubt that
any voter could vote against the
amendment OF for the amendment
| as the case may be and also vote for A, b
and G for judges in case the amendment
was lost, and vote also for ID, E, +, G, II,
1 and Il for judges in the event that the
constitutional amendment should be
adopted. 1t certainly could be done
so if provided thus in the election
law, and in point of fact a voter
might be of opinion that ID, Z and
+ would do very well on bench of
seven judges but prefer A, B and G
If they should constitute the whole court.
In such case, if the amendment should be
adopted, the vote cast for A, b and G
would be lost and not counted. and the
vote tor the other seven would be lost and
not counted in the event that the consti-
tutional amendment was defeated.
So it is under the statute as framed in