The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1884-12-16


0slll Rsalng ~ Ranss MsoeyX Y
The 1ymss- Usiss again I" comes 70 ths O.
fence Of what" constitutional lawyers wetha
probably infer was simply an inadvsrteucg %
the part Of tn editor. Still claiming that hs
u mode Of computing the majority tor CGAsti-
tutional Convention Is right" 1t reassertsahas /
the Constitstsonal mode-the mode the ELo-
Rrp1AN emplcys-for obtaining said majority lis
wrong" Il
The real point at issue here between the Isnss-
Union and the FLoRIDIAN on this subject is this:
Our esteemed contemporary has adopted and lpur-
sues its own theory of calculating the majority
for Convention, while the FLORIDIAN adopted
and adheres to the method prescribed BIZ, the
Constitution, and the only mode recognized BY
the highest tribunal in Florida, and all Others ia
miliar with constitutional law.
Adhering to its deceptive method and attenpt-
ing to annihilate the constitutional modespnr
contemporary unwittingly approves the cosisti-
tutional method The Times Union correctly as
serts that" Less than half the highest nuusksr of
potes cast for any candidate or on any question
are not SUFFICIENT to cal the Convention" /
Why, OF course not and then no number tllkt Is
less than half Of the highest number rotes cast
can for a moment be considered as the total fae9a-
tipe cote, and therefore cannot go below thu to-
tai negative vote for our majority. This is in ac-
cordance with the constitutional method, which
the FLoRIDIAN started out with and still adheres
to, while the Times Un,on, agreeing with Ahe
FLoRIDIAN, that "less than half the higbest
number of votes cast are not sufficient to calfhe
Convention" gets half of its assumed nativity
by going below half of the highest vote for it. The
FLoRIDIAN' s MAJORITY, SITS only halfas large
as that OF the Times Union, 1854. Why? Be
cause we get all of our majority from the excess
Of the affirmative vote over the constitionai neg
alive vote, 30007, while the Times Union gets
one half of its majority from the same soufee,
and the other half by taking that number of yptes
from the negative vote, 80, 007-arbiirarilyf OF
course
Pursuing the same subject the editor o. Abe
Times Union contradicts his statement quoted
above and tails into error again, by saying
where the totals arbitrarily fixed by the Con
sttution, the only way to ascertain tie ne9tstsce
ro6 is to subtract the afirmatice cote from that
total."
If you subtract the AFT, rmative vote, 81 ,Ss4,
from the total vote 60,0l4, you get your arbi-
trary and incorrect negative vote, $3.50, which
is ,S77 less than 80 O07, half of the highest vee
and The cOnstitutional negative vote. And right
here is where your mode of computation gets
away with you to the extent OF one-halt-l ST
of your assumed majority of3,754.
When you say that " less than half the highest
number of votes cast for any candidate or on
anv question are not sufficient to call the Cons
ven,ion,' you admit that half 10000 OF the
highest vote is the constitutional negative Vote
is the vote that must be overcome before there
can be a constitutional majority For ConvFn-
ton" but when you mount your treacher6us
hobby-your mode of computaion-it carries
| you into the same fatal error of arbitrarily Aa-
clarng that 28,l3O is the negative vote, while
you have already asserted that half 10000 of
the highest (60014 vote is the negative vote
Discard your erroneous method of compute
ten, as it leads you into error every time adopt
the FLoRIDIANs method-the constitutional
method-and ysu will get right and remasn
right.
| II the Constitution arbitrarily fixes the total
vote, then as a matter of fact it can and does ART
btrariy fix the negative vote, which is 30,0G7y
one half of the arbitrary total vote, 60O14 !
As the Times Union says, and the Constitution
prescribes, and the FLORIDIAN has always maia-
taned-that less than half the highest numbtr
of votes cast are not sufficient to call the Convea
tion" we of course must take 0ne-half-30, 0O1--
of the highest uote-60 0l4-as the negative roSe.
Now, the vote for Convention being 81 1884, and
1877 in excess of the constitutional negat,Ve
vote, we are compelled 10 substract 30,007, the
negative vote, and the smaller number; frosr
81, 1884, the affirmative VOTE and the larger num-
Der, which gives US 1877 as the constitutions
majority for Convention.