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

versity at different place from that of
the main university.
Received votes for location of
the entire University of Texas.
Received - votes for location OF
the main University of Texas.
Received - votes for location of
medical department Of University of
Texas.
In regard to the question of how the re-
turns shonld be estimated or the votes
counted to arrive at the will OF the peo-
pie the answer is equally plain that they
should be counted just as they are cast
and returned. All that are cast for the
entire university should be estimated
and counted separately from those cast
for the main university severed from
the medical department., and IN the
event that severance OF the medical de-
partment is carried the votes cast for
the main university alone would be con-
sidered and those cast for the entire uni
versity would not be taken into account,
and vice VersG, in the event that severance
is defeated only those votes cast for the
entire university would be considered,
and of course those cast both for
the main university and the medical
department would go for na1ght. And
this is certainly right and proper
since under the law the centre univer-
sity" and the "main university" are dis
| tinct from each other, and are to be re-
| garded as totally and entirely separate
| for the purposes OF the election as much
so 9s two different offices on the state
| ticket, for instance, governor and lieu
| tenant-governor, and person voting for
d for the entire university can vote for f
for the main university just as he would
vote for Davis for governor and Story for
| acknowledgements.
But suppose voter should vote for d
for the entire university and should not
vote for the main university could he be
said to have voted for ID for the main uni
Yersity in the event severance was car
ried? Certainly not, since he votes with
| the full knowledge that there is liable to
| be a severance, and In that way his
vote Is lost, Just as effectually
rs If he had failed 10 vote for
! governor at the state election. In fact
| man voting for any place for the main
| university If differences could be in
dulged in this matter at all, could be in
| ferred to be opposed to locating the en-
| tire university at that place since he voted
| for locating only part oft there. But this
should not be question of inference and
q vote should be rejected just as quick
for uncertainty in this election as in any
other. But it may be contended that all
votes cast for the entire university and the
main university at the same place should
be counted together. This idea arises
| from a confusion of terms. The univer-
sity and its branches or departments are
not the candidates In this election, but
| different places are candidates endeavor-
| ing to secure the location of one or the
other or both or all three. A similar case
may be presented in an election for coun-
| ty officers in county where one man was
| allowed to hold two offices, for instance
county clerk and district clerk. A an
nounces himself as a candidate for both
clerkships. b announces himself as a
| al
announces himself as a candidate for
county clerk only. Then on the election
| A receives 500 votes for district clerk and
400 votes for county clerk. b receives
400 votes for district clerk and G receives
500 votes for county clerk. A is elected
district clerk by 100 majority over B
| but G is elected county clerk by 100 ma
| jority over A. Should the voters for both
| offices be counted for A, he gets 900
| votes, and of course secures both offices
by an overwhelming majority. But the
| error of such a mode of counting is
obvious when applied to elections with
which we are all familiar. The same
principles and arguments will however
| apply to this election. Then in counting
the vote the first thing to be ascertained
| is, have the people voted to locate the
medical department at a different place
from the main university, or the
university proper, as it is called,
indiscriminately in the law? This will
of course require majority of votes
cast On that question, no smaller number
being specified. Then, if majority
| of the votes is against a severance,
it is only necessary to estimate those
| votes cast for the entire university and
award the location to that place receiv-
ing the highest number of votes there
for, provided that number exceeds one
third Of all votes cast for the entire uni
versity. But should severance be carried
| then it will be necessary to estimate only
those votes cast for the main university
and leave out of the calculation those
cast for the entire university, and if any
place has received more than one-third
| to award it the location of the main uni
versity and proceed in the same way to
ascertain the choice as to the medical
department.
The result of such ballot, return and
count of the votes will be that all these
several questions will be settled in ac-
cordance with the voice of the people,
which is said to be the voice OF God.
But it is urged that these views do not
conform to the proclamation heretofore
issued by the governor. The law and
not the proclamation have been con-
sIdered in this discussion and If there
should be variance between the proc
lamation and the statute then the statute
should prevail. The people who vote in
this election have right to have their
votes counted in accordance with the
law, even though the proclamation should
not accord Herewith.
On a conference with his excellency,
the governor, and the honorable secre-
tary Of state, we are unable to agree In re-
gard to a reply, and it was thought best
that each should answer your letter
separately. Regretting the necessity OF
troubling you with my individual views
on this question, am, very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
| j. Fl. MCLEARY,
Attorney-Genera