The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-14
to it's force or determine any question


including the precincts IN which the
local option law is in force, in order
to have the election held in the
county 90 into effect after it may be
repealed in the Justice precincts, the
answer is that there is no power I'M
der the law to hold an election to de-
termine whether the sale of intoxi'
eating liquors shall be prohibited at
some future time beyond the time
nrescribed for the taking effect OF the
law after its adoption by the people.
III in an election in precinct the
local option law is defeated " IS still
possible for county election to de-
termine something on this suoJect tor
the whole county, including such pre-
cnct, because the question as TO adop-
tion of the law in the whole county
has not Been voted Oh in such pre-
cinct, and The proposition to adopt 1t
in that precinct not having carried
there may be said to be vacancy on
that question in the precinct with ref
erence to the local option law 1t can
not be filled by an immediate precinct
election, for, as precinct question, it
has been determined by recent cleo
ton for time. But it may be deter
mined at county election
at once whether the law
shall be adopted throughout
the county, including such precinct.
But if in the precinct election the
local option law is adopted That much
of the county is not open to consider
the question. There is no vacancy
there to fill by either county or pre-
cinct election. The same law is in
force as that which the other parts OF
the county seek to adopt and the cleo
ton as to the other parts of the county
must be confined to the territory to
be affected 1t is not believed that
the local option law OF 1887 or that APP
proved March 20, 1893, which are the
same on the question being consider
ed, is in conflict with the constitution
of the state as thus construed. So
much of article 1898, Revised Statutes
as amended by the law of 1887, and
also by the act of 1893 referred to,ss is
material to consideration of this
question, roads as follows: "The fail
ure to carry prohibition in county
shall not prevent an election for the
same from being Immediately there
after held in Justices precinct or
subdivision of sIch county as deslg-
mated by the commissioners court OF
any town or city in such county, nor
shall he failure to carry prohibition
in town or city prevent an election
from being Immediately thereafter
held for the entire Justices precinct or
county in which said town or city IS
situated, nor shall the holding OF an
election in Justices precinct in any
way prevent the holding of an cleo
ton Immediately thereafter for the en-
tire county in which such Justices
precinct is situated.n x
1t will be observed that this law,
until it reaches the last clause, pro-
vides that the
FAIL URE TO ADOPT PROHIBITION
in certain elections involving certain
territory shall not prevent an election
in larger or smaller territory, but 1t
does not thus far provide that the ad-
option of prohibition shall not prevent
an immediate election involving the
same territory as a part of a larger
division of territory. Nor do think
that the last clause quoted, reading:
"Nor shall the holding OF an election
in Justices precinct in any way
prevent the holding of an election
Immediately thereafter for the entire
county, etc., when read in the light
of its context means that the adoption
of prohibition in Justices precinct
would not prevent an immedi'
ate election in that precinct,
whether the second election
should be brought in that pre-
cinct alone or in it as an integral part
of the county election. 1t will be OBJ
served in support of this construction
that it is not provided in this connec
ton that the adoption of prohibition
] in town or city or subdivision OF a
county, other than ajustice's precinct
shall not prevent an election in the
entire county, though it is provided
that the failure to adopt prohibition
in elections held in such subdivisions
shall not prevent the holding of ar
election in larger or smaller subdi
} vision. 1t would seem strange thai
, the legislature should have thought il
: important to provide that the adop
ton of prohibition by a Justices
/ precinct should not preclude
| an immediate election for the entire
county, including such precinct, but
} should not have thought 1t OF import
/ ance to also provide that the adoption
of prohibition by town or city or sub
, division of a county, other than &
3 Justices precinct, should not prevent
, an election in a larger territory, in
. Guiding such town, city or other sub
| division. Evidently the clause II
t question when read in the light of it'
t context doe, not indicate an intention
y. on the part of the legislature to make
Y different rule as to Justices pre-
r cincts from that laid down as tt
| towns, cities and other subdivision;
a of county. The clause in question
t when read literally and apart from it'
t context, does not provide that tn
:. adoption of prohibition in a precinc
d shall not prevent an immediate
n county election involving said pre-
9 cinct, but that the mere fact of holding
8 an election shall not have this effect
Q The fact that the law enumerates al
2 the conditions which it appears wa
t intended by the legislature should no
g prevent elections, and confines itsel
g to cases in which prohibition failed I
d carry, leads to the construction tina
d it was intended that whe
g prohibition did carry different rul