Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-03-17

What they Gave to say About the Levee
Tay

] OPLHlONS CE THh EhEsSt
What they gave to say About the Levee
Tax.
TIE Sacramento Leader says: That there
should have arisen question regarding the
adoption of the proposition in favor OF the
special levee tax is one of the msrvels of
the minds of men. We are at loss to
understand the force of the puerile argu-
ments that have been raised TO bolster up
| the theory that two-thirds of all the
ballots cast on Tuesday are required to
adopt the proposition. It is very plain that
the special feature of Tuesdays election
was only that portion of it relating to the
| special tax. The vote for Mayor or the
| other officers had no mole to do with it
| than had it not beea csss at all. Because
it happened that this special election fell
upon the same day with the regular cleo
| ton, does not il any way destroy the
| special feature nor is It's identity and dis.
Effectiveness in any particular lost. By
the invincible trend OF logic it follows that
only those ballots can be counted, as re-
/ latipg to the special question to be de-
| cided, that contain an expression of the
viii Of the voters on that question. For
| if the votes for Mayor and City Attorney
aud the other officers are to be counted as
part of the vote of the special feature of
| the election, then the latter loses its ideu-
tity, and has nothing distinctive about
| Il. Then, indeed, there has been no spe-
| cial election, as provided in the statute,
and we will have TO 60 over again with
| the form Of holding a special election, or
else truet to the indulgence of the ele-
ments to save our city from floods. We
are unable to see how reasonable
men can be led to any other conclusion.
In another light still there is left no
room Tor dieputlng the suihcieucy of the
vote cast for the tax. Let US admit, for
the sake of argument that two.thirds of
all the ballots cast are necessary to carry
| the measure we must likewise admit
that the converse is equally true-that
it takes one-third of all these ballots co
defeat it. But, as a matter OF fact, not
more than one-fourth of the total vote
of 4, l47 is recorded against the measure.
| Therefore it is certainly adopted as the
viii of the lawful majority. We do not
think that this argument can be disposed
! of with any sort Of reason. The point SO
clearly made by our morning contemporary
that ballot is not a vote is well taken. a
ballot may be only blank sheet of paper,
and does not of necessity carry any ex-
preston of the opinion of the person de-
posting it. a vote is distinct and ex-
| plicit expression of the will of the voter.
| Now, so far as the special feature of Tues
! days election is concerned, the voter who
| neglected to give any expression of his
wish on the special tax stands in precisely
| the same position as il he had not voted at
all. He may have voted for the candi-
! dates, but he evidently had no thought of
| the special feature OF the election when his
| ballot was Deposited. 81 Evident intent
is the rule always applied by the COucts in
| determining disputed ballots, and If the
rule is followed we have no doubt that the
| leyee tax VIII be declared lawfully and
legally carried.
Tno Suaday Capital says: The levae
| question, like BAnquo's ghost, viii not
down the subject is still being discussed
with much feeling by the daily press. The
Bee would have it thst the tax has been
defeated, because it did NOT receive two
| thirds Of all the ballots cast on taat day,
| being sixty short of the sufficient num-
| Der, The proposition OF levee tax and the
! city municipal election were held on the
| same day with the candidates for city off.
cep, and the tax levee being voted for on
the same ticket, the elections being held
| Jointly TO save expense to the city, and
| good move it was by the officials in the
clty's behalf. And because All ballots
were cast which were neisherfoT nor against
! the proposition, the Bee with the same
! bitterness which characterized its course
! before the election, woul1 have these bal
| lois tailed against the scheme. The cleo
lion Of the city officers and the tax levee
proposition we're connected 10 no way
whatever with each other, other than they
| were voted for or against on the
same ballot, and it IS a mystery
10 Us, as it is also to the average
| tanker, how the Bee can expect the
| AZ blank ballots 10 be counted against the
tax. The statute says: " Two-thirds of
| all the votes cast shall be in favor of the
proposition" and by the good Judgment of
| the people Of Sacramento the proposition
mas been carried by two-thirds majority
Of all votes cast at that election
| for or against the tax, and the Bee will
| ,ind that it viii be so decided by the Eec
ton Board. The position which this in
| tluential journal has placed itself IN by its
| Wild utterances Is q ridiculous one, to say
| The least, and 20 comment on It's many bot
| tonlsss opinions would take considerable
space, if not "h,l book" and as the
question of 80 be, or rot to be, " will
soon be settled, it Is possibly the better
| plan to let it blow until its steam is OK
! haus.ed. II is claimed by cur esteemed
/ contemporary tIat 1t lab0rs for the best in.
teres.s Of the people, and as the 'pcople"
| have declared Tor their own interest by
1 casting 6Sl votes Tor b tier lovee pTOtec-
I ton, agains: ,029 not in favor Of it, we
should Judge tAat the Bee mas not very
good conception Of the rule which they
claim being theirs.
The Gait Ga-saeisays The proposition
10 appropriate SO 000 for the improve.
ment Of the leyges around the city OF Sac
meato was submitted to the voters at the
municipal election last Tuesday, in accord.
arce with the law. The Law requires that
all such proportions shall receive two.
thirds majority Of al the votes cast or
pollei 3. such election before the authori.
ties shsH proceed to levy the tax. At this
election majority of over two thirds of
the persons voting directly on the levee
question voted eyes" but it seems that
| the popularity OF some OF the candidates
drew out larger total vote than was
polled for the levee, proposition. Il is,
therefore, claimed by the Bee, which op-
posed the measure, and others who voted
against it, that the proposition was lost, it
not having received two-thirds of all the
votes cast for the candidates The RECORD
UNION and the friends of the appropria-
ton, however, insist that the proposition
received legitimate two.thirds majority.
| We are also inclined to this opinion, for
the reason that the statutory provision
clearly means to say two Thirds of all the
votes polled for or against that particular
| question. What difference does it make
if other candidates are voted for at this
election, or if other questions are decided
at this time? The " election referred
to by the law simply means the
election, or the vote on the particular ques-
l - -. - nrd cnnstinns