The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-09-14


vote in such an election. ALI the
voters are not equally interested in
the result of any election. Courts are
not constituted to make laws 10 cor
rect the injustice which may result
from the enforcement OF existing laws,
but must administer the laws az they
are enacted by the legislature, il they
are not unconstitutional. But the
question raised here goes further than
to challenge the right of the voters IN
certain precincts to vote at county
election. 1t raises the question
whether there is any authority under
the constitution and laws OF the state
to hold q county election on the SUD-
ject of local option when the local
OPTION LAW IS ALREADY IN FORCE
in one or more precincts In the
county. | can readily understand
that the legislature has the authority
under the constitution to provide that
the adoption of the local opIion law
by any subdivision of the county
should only maize such law operative
either for q certain time or until an
election on the same subject should be
ordered for the entire county, ana
|
the people decree the law should re
main in force certain as to the maxi
mum time of its duration in such suo-
division, but subject under the terms
upon which it was adopted, to tefml-
nate at any time upon the ordering OF
an election TOR the entire county. L
can also perceive that the legislature
could otherwise provide for periodical
examinations of the operation OF the
law in all subdivisions of the county
in order to give preference to the
method of adopting the law by coun-
ties instead of by subdivisions Thereon.
But the question to be here considered
is, does the constitution permit OF a
law authorizing an election for an
entire county when the prohibition
law has been adopted for certain
time and is in force in one or
more subdivisions of the county,
and does the law enac ed by the legis-
lature so provide? I he 0ectien OF the
constitution authorizing the legisla-
ton on this subject is article ID, sec
ton 20, as amended in 1891, which
reads as follows: "The legislature
shall, at its first session, enact law
whereby the qualified voters of any
county, justice precinct, town, city Tor
sach subdivision of a county as may
be designated by the commissioners
court of said county,, may by ma
jorIty vote determine from time TO
time whether the sale of intoxicating
liquors shall be prohibited within The
prescribed limits" 1t will be per-
ceived from the foregoing language
that the authority is given to hold
only such an election on the subject
mentioned as shall determine some-
thing, and further, that the determin-
alton of the question shall be cock
tensive with the prescribed limits in
which the election is to be held. 1t
would seem to follow that if an elec-
ton sh uld be held in given terri.
tory, which should include within its
prescribed limits certain territory as
to which the election could determine
nothing, and the vote should be taken
On proposition purp0rting to effect
the whole of said prescribed limits,
and should result in majority OF the
votes being cast for or against the
proposition, the election would be
void. 1t could not take effect as to
the entire limits, because as to part
thereof the voters had no power at
the time to affect the status acquired
therein at q prior election, and 1t could
not take effect as to the other portion
of the prescribed limits because the
vote would MT have been cast with
reference to q smaller territory. The
court of appeals of Texas, when con-
STRUNG the section of the constitution
referring to the local option laws, in
Whisenhunt VS.. State, Is Curt OF
Appeals, 491, said: "When adopted by
a precinct, city, or town, of county,
in so far as that particular subdivision
is concerned its 'local option" cannot
be afterwards interfered with with
i'm its prescribed limits, much less null
lifted and repealed by county cleo
ton held before the expiration Of L
months. he term is now two years.
There Is not one law for q precinct
and another for a county; there is but
one state law on the subject, and the
vote of precinct or county is merely
the circumstance that causes the law
to take effect in a given locality
Hence when the law is in force in d
precinct, a county election resulting IN
u DldlOTlly NObt III ldNOl Va thO "uop
, ton of the law, could not operate &c
repeal the law in a precinct which
was operative by virtue of a precinct
election aud cause the same law tC
become again operative by force of the
county election. Neither could the
f failure of the people at a county cleo
3 tion to adopt the law operate to repea
t the law in the precincts in which i
! was in force by virtue of precinc
. elections. Exparte Cox, CT. app. 597
t Then it must follow that a count.
. election could not determine whethe
: the sale of intoxicating liquors shall
8 be prohibited within the precincts il
D which it is already In force and tina
= therefore county election could no
/ determine whether the sale of intox
b. icating liquors shall be prohibited
1 within limits" in which the election
!. would be held. 1t is manifest that tn
| purpose of the election in question /
A not and cannot be to determin
| whether the sale Of Intoxicating
liquors shall be prohibited inthat par
\ of the county in which such sales ar
0 not already prohibited and such beipI
d. the object and only effect which sal,
: election can have, the election shout,
, be ordered and held alone within tn