Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-15
Ho1sS BY ITS OWN psrARp.
The Levee TaN Question Settled by the
Law Beyosd all Question.

not well have been written SO SIS to contain
more self-destructive points nor stronger su.
thority than it did directly against the posi-.
ton it was intended to support. 1t was as
clear and acceptable to the friends of levee
protection who carefully read it as if it had
been written BY one who was honest and in.
tended to tell the truth upon the question.
Let us for moment examine the cases
quoted, which were intended to show
that the levee tax was not legally
adopted by the necessary two.thirds vote.
The first case citsd is that of B4ysrd Va.
Killings, 10 MINI, 249 In this case the point
was that Ar icle II Section l, of the Con-
stitutiou of that State provided that all laws
for the removing OF county seats
shall, before taking effect, be submitted to
the electors Of the county TO be eff
fected thereby, at the next general election
after the passage thereof, and be adopted by
a majority OF such electors.
The Bee says that " In passing upon the
question as to whether law passed authoriz-
ing tbs removal OF county seat had been
adopted by the constitutional provision cited,
it was held that majority Of all the electors
who had voted at such election must have
concurred in such removal, snd that it was
not sufficient that " majority of those who
voted upon the proposition of removal to
have copcurred therein, unless such majority
was ajority Of all the votes cast"
This proposition has nc more to DO with
the case in this city than Choctaw Indian
has with the New Theology. In the Mime.
sofa case the law provided, as will be seen,
tn It al laws for removing county seats should
be submitted to the electors of the county
sat the merit general election after the passage
thereof, and be adopted by q majority of such
electors"
Now, there the law required the matter to
be submitted not only sat the next general
election "-and therefore was prevented from
being considered at special election-but ii
went further, and necessarily made this ques.
ton part and parcel of the general election
by requiring that it should be adopted by a
maj 'ritY of all electors at such general
election. The term elector there
used means everyone who was shown
the polls, for an "elector" means one
who possesses the right to exercise the elect
i've franchise, and although he may hsve
only given his name to the poll clerk, and
deposited blank piece of paper in the bal
lot-box, yet he was an "elector ;" his name
was on the poll sheet, and it was the electors
as shown by the record, and the ballots
whether blank or not) that were the test.
Let the reader remember that point.
On the contrary, the law under which the
question was submitted in this city requires
that tive birds Of all the l0teS cast shall
constitute the msjority required. Here, it
will be seen, the "roteS are the test in
counting, and not the ELECTORS" as was re-
ference between an "electer and Is vote -
as there is between a man, as an Individual,
and warranty deed which he may execute.
An "electo. is an individual having the
right to vote a vote" as all the authori-
ties dsfne it, is the oppression Of the
WW of the elector, SO clearly stated
that his intention can be unequivo.
cslly determined by the Election Board.
Therefore it makes no difference, under the
special law under which our levee proposition
was submitted, how many " electors ap-
preached the polls, or deposited pieces of pa.
per in the ballot-box, but the only test is,
gave expression to their will by voting either
"yes' or "no" on the proposition submitted.
No reader can be so obtuse as not to compre.
bend the distinction here drawn.
In this connection it may be stated, as
illustration, that gentlemen have come to this
office since the election, and stated that they
purposely cast blank ballots on this PROPOSE
ton, because, not being property owners,
they believed they should not interfere, or
have their votes count either way.
1t will be further observed that our law
says nothing about the proposition being SUBJ
mitted at a general election, but specially
provides for its being held as special cleo
ton, and at any time within fifteen days
after publication has been made" This
shows that the two cases proceed from ex-
actly opposite standpoints, the one being
specially made by law part of general
election, and the other special election, even
if held for convenience and economic reasons,
at the same time and place as a general cleo.
ton.
But the Bee again says:
The case of Gillespie Vs. Palmer go Wis. 5i4) has
been referred being opposed to the conclusions
here adduced. The report Of the shows that at
q general election held in Wisconsin in 1919, the
question was submitted to the electors OF that State
whether the right Of suffrage should be extended
to persons of African descent The law provided
that such right should be extended only upon con
ditiOn that majority OF all the votes cast at such
election " were in favor thereof. At such election
there were State officers, county i1ers members
of Congress- and the question of extending the right
OF suffrage voted for; and the law required the
use of one ballot for State officers, another for
county officers, another for members of Congress,
and still another the suffrage question, and that
these ballots should be deposited in Separate boxes
majority of all the votes cast In the electoral
box were in favor of extending the right of suf-
frage Notwithstanding such majority, it was
claimed BY respondent, first, that the extension of
suffrage should be approved by majority of all the
votes all subjects and for all officers cast at such
election and, second, that such extension should
be approved by majority Of all the voters voting
at such election. These claims held by the
Court to be untenabe, it being decided that 1t was
sufficient that jory Of all the votes cast IL the
" electoral box were in favor Of extending the
right.
Well did ever before newspaper use a
weapon against an opponent which so effect
ually and conclusively demolished its own
cause? The law as here stated decides the
Sacramento case in favor OF levee improve.
ment beyond the possibility of a question.
In the Wisconsin election four distinct sub
iects were submitted at one election, and the
only difference between that and our case be.
ing that separate bsllot-bcxes were provided
for each, aud here only one box. In Wis
cousin there were State officers, county off.
GERS, Congressman and negro suffrage to be
voted for. In Sacramento there were city
officers, levee improvement and drainage.
Iu Wisconsin the case was based upon the
negro suffrage question simply, as will be
seen. 1t was contended that in order to
legally adopt this proposition, not only
q majority of the votes in the suffrsge-box
was required, but that sit should be ap.
proved by majority of all the votes on all
the subjects aud for all the officers cast at
such election"
But the Court decided that onlya majority
of the UoteS cast upon the suffrage proposition
alone acre necessary to its adoption. This is
the Sacramento case precisely. We voted on
three propositions-officers, levees, drainage.
The majority required for each must be as
certained by the votes cast for each, and en-
tirely irrespective of the votes Cast for the
others.
Blu. il any doubt remsins after all this, it
is swept sway by the decision OF the Supreme
Court Of the United States in the case of St.
Joseph Township VS.. Rogers DC Wallace.
644) In that case the State law provided
that no municipality or township should
incur a debt without the proposition
TO do go having first received a majority
vote of all the electors [uot voteS SIS in sur
easel of the municipality or town hip.
At the election not one-hslf OF all
the electors of St. Joseph's township took
part in the election, and still smaller num-
Der voted in favor of the proposition. Yet
the Supreme Court held that msj prity OF
those who did take part in the election, hav-
ing voted in faver of the proposition, that
the vote must be construed as expressing the
assent of the maj rity of the electors in the
township. Here il Sacramento the decision
was TO be made not by given majority Of
all electors, but of voters voting on the par
ticular proposition submitted. 1t will be