Mexico weekly ledger., 1890-10-30
THE LOCAL OPTION LAW.
County Clerk Williams Holds
That The Law Does Not Re-
quire a Certificate of
Adoption.


Quire a Certificate of
Adoption.
To the Editor OF the Ledger.
MEXICO, Mo-, Oct. 25.-With re-
gard to the recent decision and de-
feat of the local option law in Au-
drain county, I deem it my duty in
Difference to public opinion, and in
defense of my own official action,
to make an explanation. I do it
with no intention or desire of pro-
voking a newspaper controversy,
or of duplicating any one, or OF
shielding myself from that criti-
cism, or condemnation which
should of a right follow any officer,
high or low, who has proven rec
reant to public trust or derelict
of his official duty. There was no
controversy in the case in the Cir
cult Court in the decision referred
to over the legality of the adoption
of the local option law in Audrain
county, except that the County
Clerk had failed to certify to the
County Court the result of the
local option election, as found from
the casting up of the votes by the
board of canvassers authorized by
law to count the vote. Also that
no certificate from the clerk as to
who composed that board of can.
vassers.
The facts in the case are, that the
law does not require anv such
certificate from the County Clerk,
nor is it named in the local option
law, or in the general election law
of the State of Missouri, that the
County Clerk shall certify to any
one or to any Court the result of an
other than in a general election in
which some one is elected to an
Office, in which case the clerk certi-
fies to the candidate elected. There
was, no one elected at the local op.
tion election, and, therefore, no one
to certify to. But in lieu of a GER
tifcate from the canvassing board,
the Court ordered the result pub
llshed as by law required for four
weeks in the same papers in which
former notices of said election were
printed; and also ordered same
spread upon the records of the
Court all of which appears of
record in my Office, The canvass
ing board was legally composed as
required by sec. 1854, Election
Law of Missouri, of Judge Jno. A.
Guthrie and Judge NJ. L. Raftery
of the Court, and myself. P,'hlic
outcry was made of the lesu,- "
counting the vote. Then the Couu
ty Court convened AID ordered the
result recorded, whic, was done.
In local option case taken up to
the St. Louis CourS If Appeals,
Feb. IS, 1890, from Greene county,
Mo, (State vs.. Searcy) and upon
this point of a certificate from the
County Clerk, certifying the result
OF local option election, The Curt
frankly States: ''No provision is
found in the general election law
directing what the cle.k of the
Courty Court shall do when the
election is not an election of public
officers; but by analogy x X x
it is obvious that in lieu of the cer-
tifcate of election which he Or
dinarlly gives to the successful
candidate, he makes a statement
of the result of the election and
this is entered upon the records Of
the County Court. Page 404, 39th
Missouri official reports. l give
above the exact language of the
court, which simply by analogy re.
quires statement from the Coun.
ty Clerk and does not even say to
whom said statement should be
made. The statement, as required
by this decision, was made to the
County Court as soon as it coaven
ed as a County Court. After count
ing with mysel') the vote as &
canvassing board, and the result
:, spread upon record, namely: for 10
6 cal option, 1856 votes; against loca
option, ,116l. Majority in favor of 10
cal option ,94 votes. Another case OF
local option it seems was taken uE
to Kansas City Court of Appeals
+ March, 1890, from Ray county
Mo. Estate VS.. Barney Machin.
1 cannot give volume and page, Al
the report has not yet been pub
lished in book form, a copy 0
the manuscripts of which has beel
e kindly furnished me by Mr.. w. w
n Fry, attorney for defendant in cas-
# just tried in our Circuit Court
8 which manuscript or copy, thougl
= not under official signature, seal o
: certificate, l must infer by analog.
[. to be true copy, in which cas-
!, the Court of Appeals inferes it t
be the duty of the County Clerk t
y certify to the County Court the re
suit of the vote as found by tn
! canvassing board. Thus we Sc
: that by analogy and inference--ou
by plain printed law --thes
upper Courts decide that stat.
ment one, a certificate the otheI
should be made by the clerk, th
one to no one named, the other I