Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1895-01-08

structures was not only natural OUT
necessary part OF the question to be vot-
ed upon. III a taxpayer were inquired
OF whether he favored the idea OF new
court house, would he not be likely to
answer the question conditionaily:
Would not his answer depend upon his
information as to where the court house
was 10 bee located, and at What cost II
was 10 be built, and rs to how the neces-
sary means were 70 be obtained 10 build
with! And what an awkward result
might have followed IL these different
parts OF one and the same proposition
had been voted upon separately. III
would not be strange, In such close
election AS this was, II the vote had re-
suited In favor Of the locality and
against all else. or also In favor OF build
Ing but against the price, OF In favor oil
the price and against building or there
might have been other Inconsistent II
not absurd results.
The idea on which this contention OF
the complainan,s is grounded, Is found
in the construction which courts have
given to constitutional provisions exist
ing Ia some OF the states prohibiting
their legislatures. from ombodyiug two
distinct and independent private or local
subjects in one act. In such states two
or more schemes OF private legislation
cannot be grouped together. The object
Is In proven, combination Of different
interests where each one may help the
other: .1to prevent" AS Folger, j., ex-
pressed IL in New York case, 1.-THE
Joining one local subject with smother or
Others OF the same kind so that each
subject should gather votes Tor all.
People vs.. Supervisors, - y. \. 10.
Hewett W. Vary, 30 \. \. 500.
But In the cases cited, and In all kin
dred cases, IL Il clearly explained that
parts OF subject are not 10 be regarded
as separate subjects. In the case last
cited II was held that an act TO revive
the charter III a municipal corporation
ia the state OF New York, where the
constitutional Inhibition referred to
exits had the effect TO restore all the
legislative, judicial, taxing and police
powers which such municipality had
previously possessed. The principle In
voked by the complainants has been APP
piled ia a case where state aid TO several
different railroads was granted In the
same bill, and also In case where pro-
visions for aiding railroad and school
district were Joined in one bill; and
there are several decisions OF that kind.
But all the cases touching the principle
disclaim any application 10 an act reiit-
ing TO single subject or thing although
II involve details and particulars.
There can be no argument in the case
before Us that the whole proposition
would carry more votes than Its differ
ent parts would " submitted singly.
Really the effect would have been the
other way. The voter who disapprovcd
OF the location might vote against the
proposition submitted. And so might
one whose opposition was aroused
agsinst the amount Of money called for
AS being either too large or too small.
And still another might be opposed TO a
county debt, and vote In the negative on
that account. But the man who would
be sure Of voting in the affirmative
would be- one 10 whom the proposition
would be acceptable In all particulars.
We can lind no case whatever having
any tendency 10 support the position OF
the complainants on this point, but the
respondents have referred US 10 two
very pertinent decisions which are d.
rectly In opposition To 1t. IL was held
In Blood rs. Mercelliott, 81 Penn ST.,
39I, that an enactment enlarging the
boundaries Of county, and locating
anew the county site, with provisions
for obtaining donations for erecting
county buildings, related to only one
subject and was not unconstitutional.
There ia clear and satisfactory discus
sion Of the same principle 10 late case
Ia Iowa, not yet published In the regular
reports of that state, but 10 be found In
IS Nor. West. Rep. 81, Rock Va. Klein
hart) where the question submitted to
the people was, whether court house
10 cost not to exceed fifty thousand dol
lars. shall be erected from the proceeds
OF swamp lands belonging TO the conn
IT," and il was there held that the bal
lot was not Objectionable as containing
more than one proposition. Omnibus
bills and such as are of multifarious
character are those that are objection
able. Davis vs.. The State, Md. lG0. IL
the provisions all relate TO one enter
prise il Is but one subject matter. Clifford
vs.. New Jersey X. X. Co., , Stockton
Chan III. Or, IL such matters are not
improperly connected with each other,
TommassOn va. The State, ID Ind. 40.
Another objection made against the
form OF the proposition issued by the I
commissioners is that il asks for permis- |
sion 10 use notes or bonds of the county |
to raise the means with which TO build
the new court house. But this objection
easily falls with the others; they are OF /
the same kind.
Then comes still another objection, but |
OF different character, however, not |
that the vote submitted contained too |
much OF proposition, but that 1t did not
contain enough, it not being named In
the proposition upon what time the
notes or bonds of the county were to be
issued. That Is matter which will take
care Of itself. Ii Is enough 10 say that
the obligations Of the county should be
issued on such time az may be reasonable
in view of all the circumstances. The
discretion of the commissioners must
govern that matter. The credit was 10
be voted by the people-the details OF
its execution are for the commissioners.
Whether equity would interfere and
break up result In such case as this,
ia a state where there is no constitution
al provision or legislative enactment
gainst 1t, provided this were an Instance
Of double proposition presented for the
ballots of the people, Is question which
does not now require either decision or
at our hands. Il
Still another point Of objection Is made
which we believe to be utterly unten-
able, aud that is that the proposition
voted on was wholly In the warrant and
no part Of it on the ballot, there being
no other indication on the ballot OF what
was being voted except what was to be
lieduced from the 'yes" or mo" there
on. The answer to this objection Ia
that the method adopted here IL the usu-
Al one, and the method employed In |
nearly all instances OF the adoption Of
amendments In this state
BY Q vote Of the people. We quote from
he language Of Chapter 2l7 Of the Re !
solves OF 1880, relating to ballot on
bur last constitutional amendment which
was voted upon and adopted that year:
Resolved. That the.aldermen Of cities, select
men Of towns, and assessors Of plantations. In
me state. arc hereby empowered and directed
o notify the Inhabitants OF their respective
titles, TWINS and plantations, In the manner
,v,o.crJH.od nv 1s~ AZ annual needing In i n