Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-13


That the levee question was put on city cleo
ton tickets or ballots, was only q matter Of
economy and convenience, and did not make
il Il Joint question with the selection of off.
ceEs. AbbotS's law dictionary says e vote
IS the choice of an elector expressed in writ
ing or print" OBVIOUSLY, then, Is paper ex-
pressing no choice Is no vote.
Il People vs.. Pesse, q n. Y. Reps. 81, a
vote IS thus defined " A vote is but the ex-
preston of the viii of the voter, and whether
the formula to give expression Co such a sill
be ballot or viva voce, the result is the
same-eiJhsr is a vote"
From all til; i; is clear that the standard
of measure from which the two-thir6s vote is
to be ascertsined is the aggregate Of ell those
who express theic will By vote upol tbs
propositions" specially submitted.
THE WILL OF a VOTER
Ia to be ascertained Only from the face of the
ballet he casts. AS Chief Justice Sanderson
said in People W. Holden: $50 long as il
can be discovered from the ticket who is
voted for, and the ofEics for which intended,
it must be counted as one ballot" Per con-
ira. when it cannot be determined for what
the elector voted the ballot cannot be counted.
NOW IT IS COMMENDED
That the levee tax is defeated because there
were cast for three candidates for Mayor on
Tuesday 1877 votes, and for the levee tax
2,GSl, which is not two-.hirds Of 4, l27 il re-
curing 1852. or II more than were cast.
Upon what hypothesis the vote for Mayor
4, 127-is taken as the standard to measure
the levee tax BY, is iuscrutsble
But the aggregate vote for and against the
levee tax was 5, 10 votes cast on that promo
sitiOn," and were all the votes cast expressing
any will OF the voter on thu question.
Now, l, 029 only being the negatives against
it, twice that amount, or 9 05S affirmative
votes only were needed to overcome the
"noes." Bat there were cast for tbs leVees
,, 6S1, leaving & surplus OF 623.
The election On tie propositions OF the
Trustees wss a special election. It was the
such election" named in the law, and Of
which g propositions" is tbs predicate. This
special election, for purely economic reasons,
was held en- the ssme day and at the same
time az an election for city officers. twas a
special election projected into the day of ar
other election. Inc Trustees could have
called it on the same day, and have provided
separate ballot boxes and election boards, and
have required q separate and distinct vote.
OF THIS THERE IS NO QUESTION WHATEVER.
No more than that they had the power to
put it On some other day, for the law gives
them power to tx it at such time SIS they
please. Now on the propositions for q
special tax Of S2S COO there were inst 8 10
voters who expressed a will by writing (.r
leayiae) either " Yes " or No or ballots,
But there were 4, 147 paper ballots put into
the ballot boxes on that day fer candidates
for city officers. OF There 437 had on them
no expression whatever regarding the prop
ositi0ns" of the Trustees.
THESE BALLOTS WE'RE BLANKS.
They were not votes at all they could not
be tailed or counted, aud aCere not IN fact
counted or considered 10y sny election board
in the city, and for obvious reasons, for they
expressed nothing. Some of them had op-
posits The question " Are you in favor Of the
taxi the words YES" No. while others
had no answer OF all, both Yes ard
No" being scratched out. So far as the
t9X lcvee question was concerned, these were
blank balots-blank pieces Of paper-and
were not votes. 1t is like the man who votes
for two Candidates on the same ballot for one
tthce-nis vote il always lost and never
counted as having bsen cast at all, or as cut
ting any figure in msjorities. Such we're all
the so.called votes between 8, 40 and 4, 147 on
Tuesday, and accordingly were prop
eriY rejected and not counted by the
election officers. Had the election involved
only the tax proposition, and 800 blanks had
been put into the box, they would have been
cast cut by the election boards. When a
ballot reads yes and no, it Is blank ballot,
expressive Of nothing and not capable Of
being counted at all. To hold that the 437
blank ballots must be counted, however, in
ascertaiuing the two-thirds, Is
TO CoUST THESE VOTES AS NoEs.
By what authority can the unexpressed
wish Of the voter be assumed TO be nay? Is
it rot precisely es just TO assume that he in.
tended to vote aye II the claim to count
she blank ballots. the voieeless ballots, as
nays, is law, it certainty is not justice.
BIT, if they may be estimated at all, then
the yea and nay expression should both be
taken, and as two votes cannot be given by
one voter, let Us give half to one and half TO
tee other-or, to be clearer, half vote to
each side-snd thds absolutely voice the vote
made dumb. Whist will DO the result? The
437 dumb ballots gives, then, 2lsl ayes ard
2lSa nays; or added to the total vote For
levse', =, $685.; agsint levees, ,A73. Now,
the whole vote cast, according to the poll
lists, which Is higher than the vote for Mayor
aggregates, was 4 l47, two-thirds Of which is
,, 765, and Is, by counting dumb ballots, We
have 2,S994 for levees,
THE PROPOSITION CARRIED.
We cite this method, very we'll understand.
ing that it cannot be used by the Trustees in
declaring the result, and that blank ballots
cannot be 30 treated but 70 illustrate the in
justice OF the attempt to force them upon me
people as cast against leyee5.
JUDGE billions OPINION.
Judge Dillon, in his celebrated work on
corporations, uses this emphatic language in
a similar case to that now under considera'
ton 'TAe better view probably is that
those who did not vote On the question acqui-
escsd in the result"
IN A WISCONSIN CASE,
Gillespie VS. Palmer 40 Wis. 544), it was
held that "a mai orisy Of all the votes cast ct
such election means Of those cast upon the
peculiar question" While in Minnesota
case On opposite ruling was made; the
Supreme Court Of the United Ststes
affirmed he doctrine Of the Wisconsin
case IN St. Joseph Township vs.. Rogers, ld
Wallacei Reps GA. In that case the State
law provi1ed that no municipality OF town
ship should incur debt without the PROPOSE
ton to DO so having first received q majority
yste Of all the electors Of the municipality or
township. At the election Eos one-hslf Of
all the electors Of st. Joseph's township took
part in the election, and still smaller num-
her voted in favor Of the proposition. Yet
the Supreme Court held that a maj ority OF
those who did take part in the election, hav-
ing voted ia favor Of the proposition, thst
the vote must be construed as expressing the
assent OF the msiofity OF the electors Of the
township. OF course this was upon the doc
trlae that absence and silence gives consent.
CONSTITUTIONAL.
We have thus passed over the whole sub
jecs in a generl way. But there remains q
constitutional question. The obstructionists
cite this clause from the Constitution, Article
NJ, Section Is:
No county, city, town. township, Board Of Edu.
cation school district, shall incur any Indebted.
ness or liability in any manner, or for any purpose.
exceeding in any yesr the income ana revenue pro.
yided for it FOR such year without the assent Of two