The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-11-22
4 MOOTED QUESTION.
DID TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATION
CARRY AT RECENT ELECTION.
some Fine Legal Points Involved in the
Controversy That VIII Take . SUI
preme Court Decision co Determine
Opinions OF Corporation Counsel
Brown. :. II. Plies and Richard
Winsor.

the county commissioners of that county
In which he held that the township or
ganizaifon had been defeated In that conn
~. Notwithstanding the fact that a ma
Jority OF the votes cast on the proposition
were favorahie 10 IT, Al the general cleo
ton Thurston county cast ass votes
Upon township organization there were
only east LOIS. OF which sis were for and
41S against. This complies with the Ian
suage OF the statute. Mr. Root says hut
the state constitution requires a majority
OF the qualified electors of A county yot-
ing at the general election Mr.. Root is
OF the opinion that this latter construction
MUS, prevail. and therefore that the town
ship proposition was defeated
In this county something like II no. votes
We're cast at the las; election and of this
number only 900 were cas-, for the town
ship amendment and s2ss against. IL the
contention OF Mr.. Root il correct as TO
Thurston county. II Is also correct as 10
King county. and although the official re-
turns are not all in, II is reasonably GER
tain that the same proportion abstained
from voting for the township amendment
In the several counties Of the state.
IL the views of Mr.. Root and others are
correct. then township organization was
not carried at the recent election. APP
pended are interviews on the subject:
). II. Plies said: II think Mr.. Root is
right IN MS opinion. and that the town
ship amendment was not carried. Sec
ticn of article III of the constitution says
that the legislature shall establish "A sys-
tenn OF county governments which shall
be uniform throughout the state. and by
general law shall provide for township
organization under which any county may
organize whenever a majority of the quail
ined electors OF such county voting at
general election shall so determine Mark
the difference between the wording of the
foregoing and that Of section of article
III. in relation to the removal of county
seats. which provides that a county seat
shall not be removed unless three-fifths
or the qualified electors of the county vot-
ing on the proposition at a general elec-
ton shall vote In favor of such removal.
Then take section of article 8. in re-
iation TO the matter of increasing indebt-
edness. which says that no law shall take
effect tfor that purposel until Ii shall at
a general election have been submitted
TO the people and have received a majority
of all votes cast for and against il at such
an election
There are other sections In the consti-
tuition. but those given are enough to
snow briefly the intent of the constitution.
MY opinion, given of hand is that the
constitution provides that the legislature
may pass laws for township organization.
but that such township organization can
oaiy be adopted when a majority votes
Tor II at such election. ana unless such
proposition has a majority of all the votes
cast at an election 1t does not become OPP
erative.
As the proposition in this and other
counties of the state did not receive a ma
tority of the total vote cast / think the
proposition Is defeated. In my opinion no
other Interpretation is possible of section
A af +s,t<
~ demonstrated by the provisions of the
constitution above quoted and by the
plain reading of section itself
Corporation Counsel John X. Brown
said.
II was at first inclined to think that the
township organization scheme would be
carried If majority OF those who voted
upon that proposition voted In favor of 1t.
basing my opinion on the decisions of our
supreme court IN the cases of Mescalf vs..
the city of Seattle and Yesler VS. the city
of Seattle, reported in volume / of the
Washington Reports. A more careful con-
sideration of the section OF the constitu-
ton by which township organization was
authorized has convinced me that the
votes of u majority of all the electors vot-
ing al the election held November 3. and
not merely a ajority of.those voting or
such provision, are required.
The decisions l have referred TO We're
based upon the meaning OF the word Vot-
ers,' while the constitution uses the word
electors with reference to township or
ganization, An 'elector' is one entitled
20 vote. while a voter II one who votes,
the former word being of broader mean
ing than the latter. The words a ma
jority OF the qualified electors OF such
county voting at a general election. can
have but the meaning l have ir-,cated-
1. e. a majority of all who vote at the
general election on any question or can
didate. The wording of the statute can
not vary the meaning or effect oil the
constitutional provision authorizing the
enactment OF the statute.
I'm rhe case of the people VS.. town OF
Berkeley. 1856 Pacific, page 5sl. case ne-
cisied by the California supreme court un-
der constitutional provision almost iden-
teal with ours. 1t was held that a major
ity OF all the electors. and not merely a
majority of chose voting, were necessary
TO carry the measure.
Popuiist Opinion.
Judge Richard N.nsor said that his
opinion off-hand was shat the general
rule Of construction has been, under con-
stitut.onai statutes, that majority of the
total vote east declared what the VIII OF
the majority Is. Attorney Root. m my
opinion, does not correctly state me con-
sfitutionai provision. The requirement Of
the constitution is that q majorRy or the
electors voting thereon stall approve.
TIE language OF the statute covering TINS
question is different from she constitution,
IL requiring 'three-fifths Of the voters
therein voting al an election IN be heid
for that purpose STILL the supreme court
in i'ne case OF M@;caif vs.. the city OF Sc
atsie held mat tu-o-rhirds majority OF
the electors actually voting on the propo-
sstion is all that is necessary. ana not
two-;h.ris Of ali persons who may oe en-
titled 10 vote. ] am. therefore, OF the
opinion that the township amendment has
been legally adopted"
In regard - the question that mas arisen
as 70 Whether the present justices OF the
peace. consfables ard road oveFst~rs
would not hold over until township organ
.zatiou was eiTasstsd on March =, isSi, am
thus prevent the recently elected justices
and ccnststDles from taking ONCE, Judge
Wsnsor said.
in my opinion chs newly elected JUS
tees OF the peace, conSsaoieS ana roam
oversaess viii take Office ard nosS them
untsl Tne township organisation - conl-
pis-tsSi. a.aeu they Win be lesrSisted out
Of office by the township organ-Za'ion
Each township organization VII elect is
own Justice ~ rhe peace. constah3s ana
road overseerS. In incorporated cities the
Justices cf che peace and cons;Sotss erect
81 a. the receEE election VII not % al
feosed. ss township organization VII only
oe effected outside OF incorporated ~" Ms