Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-18
BOARD OF CITY TRUSTEES.

TIE Superintendent Of the Water Works
reported that the number Of gallons Of waite,
pumped during the week was 1920. $50 (by
ths Holly pump; running time, 124 hours.
The officers IF election for Precinct 81
aakedfo- extra compensation for their services
at the late city election. By reason of
the large number of votes polled and the time
required to count them. After some discus.
sion, the Board allowed the officers employed
in that precinct St per day, or 81 more than
the usual per ciem.
The Board then proceeded to canvass the
votes cast at the late regular election for city
officers, ard those cast at the special election,
held on the same day, on the proposition to
levy a tax for levee purposes, with the follow.
ing result:
For Mayor-Brown (D.), 1912; Steffens
(R.). 1871; Nixon (P.l, 344. Browns ma
lority, Al.
Ramage ID 1,6S4; Dunn (P. J, 42S. An
dersen's msjoritY, 30
For Chief of Police-Jackson (R), 1,S10 /;
Lee CD. 1,781 Lsisch (P.l, 528. Jackson's
majority, 90.
For Fire Commissioner - Jackson (R.),
], 941; Burke o. 1,76S; Weber tP.), 1872.
JscEson's msjOrity, 173.
Library Trustees (no ppositionl-Fitch,
$3.50: Hinkson, 1872; Gerrish, 3,77l !;
Lenoir, 1872; Hopkins, $3.50.
Levee Tax-Yes, 2,6S1: no, 1,029.
Sanitary Tax-Yes, 1913 no, Sol
After the footings of the tally-lists, as re-
turned by the several Election Boards, hsd
been read, and the figures recorded, by the
Clark of the Board, Trustee Nielsen an.
nounced thu result, and declared those re-
caiving the highest humber of votes elected
20 their respective Offices for the ensuing
term.
Police Judge Henry then administered the
oath of Office SO Mayor Brown, and the latter
made lew remarks, excusing himself from
extended effort in thas direction on account OF
illness.
When the vote on the levee tax was
reached, snd before She result WAS declared,
Mayor Brown srose and stated that as the
matter bad engrossed public attention TO
some extent, h5 desired 70 ssy that the Board
had taken lsgai advice thereon, and had ar
rived at a unanimous concIU.ioD. lie then
read the following, as embodyin3 his views
aud those Of the Board:
La deciding such question il is well for US to
look at several questions. In the first place let
arrive az the conclusion Of what is vote what
must a vote be before il can be counted as such,
and in this case what is the aggregate Of votes cast
on this question, and low is tine whole number to
be arrived at Then lst Us look at the law-its
meaning and its intent. A ballot is slip OF paper
through which person shows his preference or his
choice for one man above another-fOr one PROPOSE
lion more than another. The ballot IS not the vote
but simply the medium by which the vote is shown
and recorded before it become n vote Some
choice must be made, some preference must be
shown, or it still remains slip of paper containing
names or propositions New, for instance,
in the last election the different tick
cts were lying on the ticket-keapers' tables
I,-F 4 Or VI il4fa
names upon them. and the two taxes printed there,
''yes" and "n0,' waiting for his choice. Now, the
voter takes ballot, votes it straight, and marks
out no." showing his choice ard his preference.
Another comes along, votes straight, but neglects
to scratch out either eyes" or "no" thus showing
no choice no preference Whatever IN fact, he does
not vote the subject, there IS no vote cast On the
subject and consequently it is neither right nor
Justice to record one in the aggregate on that sub
isct. The law requires two-third vote Of all the
votes cast at the election; out how cast? Are you
to count vote in the aggregate that 3 not vote,
that has not che nature OF vote Suppose, for in
stance it were this way election day: 1000 votes
for Mayor cast Blown receives sol, Sttans receives
400 3; Browns majority, ,. Now, fer illustration,
presume there had been one hundred Democratic
tickets plilted and voted with Browns name
omitted then there would have been one hundred
more votes for the rest OF the ticket than Brown,
and 100 more ballots a the box than had Browns
or S.etfen's name on. Ihen We VIII have our sup
possible case statd thus: Number of votes, l, 100
Brown, sol Stotfen's, 459. Browns majority, 2.
Still no one would doubt the election OF Brown, for
the law saws he must have majority plurality OF
the votes cast. But how cast? Why, plainly the
aggregate mus. be taken from the separate number
OF votes cast for himself and his opponents, and the
one having the greatest number Is elected. But the
law says this proposition must have twothirds Of
the votes cast. But how castt Why, plainly two
thirds 0. aggregate voting Yes" and " No added
together for surely this is the purpose and intent
Of the law and we must COnstrue the law Literally
and find its intent and purpose. Surely no one viii
r.H hal NEHtUf IL not H.fa
a subject must be added to the whole number
of votes cast on that subject and CT that
whole number Of votes two-thirds vote is neces-
sary. A vote must be vote cast before it can be
counted as such otherwise if choice is shown,
NJ preference pointed out you cannot call it vote
and you cannot count It as such. Suppose there
had been one hundred tickets printed with the
names Of both candidates for each office printed |
size by side and one hundred tickots-these same
the levee proposition printed also
With neither the " Yes" nor No" scratched out |
Does aGy one suppose for an instant that these bal
lots would have been counted for votes, and one
hundred more added to the list? They were there
they were ballots; bI. they were not votes, for
there was no choice whatever shown no preference
to be decided upon and surely they would have
been laid aside G3 SO many pieces Of paper, and
would not have been counted as votes cast.
The above was n consonauce with an opin-
ion furnished the Board By Hon. A. 2. Cat
lin 10 response to request by the Mayor,
and whose view OF the csse-the result of a
thorough consideration of all the points in
volye lis sustained by the following aGdi-
tionsl opinion, which 4 IS also been fled with
the Board Of Trustees:
The proposition submitted by the City Trustees
to the electors Of Sacramento On Tuesday last re-
gardlng the levy Of special tax for leyee purposes
was legally adopted.
The election provided by statute, at which said
proposili was voted upon, was special election,
although held at the sane time and place the
election Tor municipal officers, and more than two
thirds of the votes such special election Cor
upon the proposition submtted) were in favor OF the
special leyee tax.
(Sgned) " II. Beatty, W. A. Anderson, A. L.
Hart, S. c. benson, L. $ Taylor, Henry Eise't)n,
n Greene Curtis, Clinton L. White, Frank D. Ryan,
john 7. Carey, Henry L. Buckley, c. 7. Jones.
Mayor Brown thereupon moved that the
leyee tax be declared carried, aEd tie Board
so voted unanimously.
The vote on sanitary Improvement was
then declared carried by the necessary two
thirds vote on that proposition,
After allowing a number of demands the
Board adjourned.
TT,-s-ryr-r 7-r-r,.r pp,Br Ia