The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-09-03
to the same effect and af1irms this

A similar question was passed on
by the supreme court of Kansas in the
case of the State VS.. Echols GO Pac.
r. 523). The court, speaking through
Mr.. Justice Johnston, said: "The
statute under which the election was
held provides that the question of es-
tablishing a county high school shall,
upon proper petition and notice, be
submitted to the voters of county
at general or special election, by the
board of county commissioners; and,
it is further provided, that, After
said election the ballots on said ques-
ton shall be canvassed in the same
officers, and if majority of all
the votes cast shall be in favor of
establishing such high school," the
county commissioners are then re-
quired to appoint trustees and other
wise provide for the maintenance of
such school. The question presented
is whether the proposition must re-
ceive majority of the highest num-
Der of votes that may be cast upon any
question at that election or whether q
majority of those cast upon the propo-
sition itself is sufficient to give the re-
quired consent. This question has
been already considered and settled
in an action arising on substantially
similar statute. In Commissioners VS..
Winkley, 30 Kan. SO, the validity of
an election upon proposition to
allow bounty for the grow
ing and cultivation of hedge
fences was under consideration,
and the statute upon which the cleo
ton was held provided that if a ma
jority of the votes cast are for the
bounty, they shall declare said law to
be in full force and effect" That
proposition was voted on upon the
day on which the general election for
township officers in the county was
held, and it did not receive majority
of the votes cast at the township cleo
ton, and it was therefore contended
that the proposition was defeated. 1t
was decided, however, that "the cleo
tors who were present at the polls at
the called election, and while voting
for township officers did not vote upon
the bounty proposition, are presumed
to assent to the expressed will of the
majority of those voting thereon"
In Maryland q question arose on the
adoption of thigh license" as to the
number of votes required to adopt the
law. The statute provides that "the
votes of said county at the general
electionn shall determine by ballot
upon the adoption or rejection of the
provisions of the act, and made it the
duty ofjudges to "make full returns
of the votes EAST as aforesaid. The
court of appeals of Maryland constru-
ing this statute said:
at thus appears, and in fact it is
conceded, that the number of votes
cast in favor of the high license
law was not equal to the
majority of all the votes cast at the
same election for the several candi-
dates for congress; through the votes
actually cast in favor of this law con-
stitute majority of all the votes
polled on that particular subject. The
single question, therefore, presented
by this appeal is, whether under these
circumstances, the act became opera
tive and effective; or stated in other
words, did the adoption of the act de-
pend upon it's receiving in it's favor a
majority of the votes cast specially
for or against it's adoption. 1t has
been settled, both in England
and in this country by an
almost if not quite, unbroken
current of judicial decisions from the
time of Lord Mansfield to the present
day, that when an election is held at
which a subject-matter is to be de-
termined by a majority of the voters
entitled to cast ballots thereat, those
absenting themselves, and those who
being present, abstain from voting are
considered as acquiescing in the re-
suit declared by majority of those
actually voting even though in point
of fact, but a minority of those en-
titled to vote really votes citing au-
thorities. Walker VS.. Oswald II At.
lantic r, I'll.
If the section of the constitution ex-
pressly required majority of all the
electors of the state or of all the votes
cast at said election, or included SINH
lar expressions, there would be con-
f1ict Of authority as to whether any of
these expressions would be satisfied
and an amendment declared adopted
if it received a majority of all the
votes cast on such amendment, and
not majority Of all the votes cast at
the election, but there is no such ex-
preston in our constitution. The
verbiage is "votes cast" which may
be interpreted to mean votes cast for
and against the particular amend
ment referred to in accordance with
common usage and common sense,
without being embarrassed with the
added words "at said election" or the
expressions, majority of the electors
of given district or majority of tax
payers, which have caused some di-
versity Of decision, though the weight
of authority seems to be against re-
garding any other than the vote cast
on the particular subject, even where
the added expressions here alluded to
are used. But no instance can be
found in the authorities where such
expressions have been supplied by
construction. Respectfully,
f. G.. MORRIS.
DR.. Biggers' Huckleberry Cordial
is cure for all bowel troubles. For