Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1894-01-24
LOCAL-OPTION PETITION DISMISSED.

The contest over the petition for a local-option
election in this city, which was continued
for ten DAYS, was concluded on last Saturday
morning, when it was dismissed by Judge
Grattan for the reason that, at that time the
petition contained only 238 names when the
law requires that there should be one-fourth
of the qualified voters who voted at the pre-
vious election. The number who voted at the
previous election was 1475, one-fourth of
which is 1881, and the number of names be-
ing only 23S, was not quite enough to authorize
him to order the election.
The petitioners we understand, alleging that
some names were improperly taken off, will
make application to the Court of Appeals for
a mandanauS requiring the Judge to issue writ
for the election. As this is the first decision
of this kind, and is of great interest, we pub
lish it as delivered as follows
JUDGE GRATTAN's DECISION.
This petition contains by my count 435
Names The plumber of votes cast at the last
November election was AIS. One fourth of
this number is 36S4, but as there can be no
fraction in the matter, there must be 1863
names left upon the petition before the court
can order an election. Of the 435, sixteen
have been struck off as men who had not
voted and nine for other causes. About these
the court is not in any doubt. There is anoth-
er class of forty-twO who had originally sign
ed the petition and who are voters and voted
at the last November election, but who come
in now and ask to be struck off. This matter,
| am frank to confess, has given me some
trouble. At the first blush | was strongly of
opinion that the petition must be taken as of
the date of its filing, and that no one could
take his name from the list except for the
cause Of fraud or mistake.
Is this the case? This statute Is one, in my
opinion, that should be strictly interpreted as
it creates an expense in its execution which is
tax upon the public, and, if the petitioners
are successful, to some extent abridges trade
and impinges upon personal liberty. 1t was
earnestly argued that a CO. petitioner could not
withdraw and leave his co-petitioners in the
lurch and the case of a plaintiff where off
sets are filed greater than the amount claimed
in his suit is cited as statutory provision 60
ing to show that the plaintiff cannot withdraw
his suit; but the reason of this is plain-the
statute in providing the relief by way of set
off from bringing an additional suit really
makes the plaintiff the defendant quodd the
matter set up in2the set-off, and provides that
he shall not withdraw his suit and compel his
adversary to bring new one to Etlgate the
matter already at issue in the first one
What is the object OF the petition under the
statute? Ii is to find out whether in any COM
munity named in the statute there are one
fourth of the qualified voters who voted at the
last November election who wish to have an
election held-not wished yesterday, or will
wish to morrow, but who wish at the time the
court passes upon their petition. That this is
so seems further to be argued from the fact as
already passed upon by the court, that one
who dies after signing the petition and before
it is acted on must be stricken Off Why? Not
because he did not wish for an election when
he signed, but that, being dead, he can not
And ind la nf nfh h.
ers who may have signed and then moved
away, changed their voting places, losing their
votes in the places where the election is
sought. Now if this be so in the case of those
who by death or absence merely cease to will
a .fOrtiOri, it must be so in the case OF those
who have changed their minds and not only
cease to wish for an election, but come in and
pray to be made defendants against the petit
ton.
The spirit of the law is that whenever there
is such desire to test the question of whether
liquor shall or shall not be licensed in the
| community, and the court is shewn by the
fact that one-fourth the qualified voters who
voted ask for it. it must be granted, and where
not one-fourth ask for it, it shall not be or
dered. The question here is: Do one-fourth
as appears from this petition pray for an cleo
ton? How can the court determine this
question except by examining the petition to
| find out who are properly there? And the
question arises, Is man whose name is on a
petition and comes in and says he does not
wish it to be there to be counted among the
| number of those who wish for the election
| In other words, under the spirit of statute
| which must be strictly construed, and which
requires that one-fourth of the qualified voters
| who voted shall wish for and ask for an cleo
| ton, can the court order the same when
| enough of them signing said petition. come in
and say they don't wish fort? Suppose upon
| petition signed by 500, 499 should come in
and ask to be taken off, under the spirit of the
law would it be supposed for one moment
| that an election would be ordered? But what
| right have the 499 that any individual among
| them does not have?
| Undoubtedly the legislative idea was there
| must be certain per cent. of any community
| that wished for and could be counted upon tc
vote for a restriction upon the sale of spirits
| before an election should be ordered, both on
| the ground of economy and also to avoid the
| harassment incident to these elections and the
minimum they fixed was the one-fourth, SC
| that if it appear that less than that number
wish the election it will be carrying out the
spirit as we'll as the letter of the law to deny
it.