Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1898-02-27

city do not bring out a full vote. In the
present case the vote did not reach forty
two per cent of the registered votes at the
general election of 1896. 1t may be that
the Legislature aided by the experience j
of similar elections intended that Il i
election should be determined by IA ma
jority of hey votes cast, and not by a ma
jOrity of all the electors Of the City of
Reno. Whether this was the reason or ,
not for the use of the word cast in the
sentence, the fact remains that it is super !
tiuOns under any other view. Under the
rule that no word shOuld De rejected as
SuVtriiunlr if il can be avoided, we o !
c!uie lAIl u majority of the votes cast
and not a majority of the votes of the !
electors of the City of Reno as shown by |
the official registration of 1875 could
rightfully determine the question: pre-
scented.
1t is objected that the provisions of Sec ,
ton II of the Act providing that the trial
in all cases for the infraction of city Ordi-
nances of a police nature shall be sum-
mary in character before the police judge
without a jury are i'll violation of the pro-
visions of the Constitution which declare
that the right of trial by jury shall be Sc
cured to all and remain inviolate forever.
This constitutional provision has not
been considered as extending the right of
jury trial but as confirming Inc securing
it as it was understood at OinlnOn law.
\ jury can not be claimed as of right in
an equity case; or upon an issue of law,
for that is a matter purely for the Court.
Sedgwick says that extensive and sum
mary police powers are constantly eXer-
cised in all Of the States Of the Union for
the repression of breaches Of the peace
and petty offences; and these statutes are
not supposed to conflict with the consti-
t|utional provisions securing to the citi-
zen9 a trial by jury ="
Sedgwick.
See also Dillon0n Nun. Corp. Sec. 1872.
McGear vs.. Woodruff, 33 y. J. l.. 2l1.
Johnson VS.. Barkley, lst Har. l.
Byers VS.. Commonwealth, II Penn.
81. 50.
1t * claimed that Sec , of the Act which
provides that the members of the City
Council shall be owners of real estate i'll
the City Us a qualification of membership
is II! y iD!dllOu Oh lIt CONSTITUTION. We
do u.t understand which particular pro-
vision OF The Constitution is relied upon,
but Nc may say generally that there is
nothing in the Constitution upon the sub
ject Of the property qualifications OF
cOuncilinen or other officers. The Legls-
lature not being restricted had the power
to impose the qualification and the pro-
vision being reasonable and intended as a
safeguard to the owners o~fproperty should
be enforced.
Meachem on Pub. Officers, Sec. 81.
1t is also objected that Sec. 81 of the Act
which provides that the City may borrow
, not to exceed Sl5O,O0O. for the purpose OF
procuring water and the erection of water
works, is unconstitutional as being con.
! trary to Sec. s of Art. VIII, which pro,
l vides that the Legislature shall provide
: for the organization of cities and towns
> by general laws and restrict the powers o
l taxation, assessment, borrowing none
contracting debts, and loaning their cred
{ it, except for procuring supplies of water
l The fact appears to have been overlooked
that the City of Reno was incorporated
I under a special law enacted in conform
t ity with Sec. l of Art. l, which authorize
the creation of municipal corporations b.
ii special enactment.
t Objection is made that Section Two o
the Act divides the City into five wards
and it is claimed that such division ig
nores the provision of the Constitution
which requires that representation shal
y be appOrtioned according to population
3 Cart. l, Sec. 49,
e. Waving the question whether the pro
y vision is applicable to municipalities,
is sufficient answer to say that it is i'm
Ii practicable to apportion representation
by any other method than by geographi
! cal lines, and it will be presumed that tn
u lines have been fixed in conformity wit
g the requirements Of the Constitution i
- the absence of a showing to the c~ontrar,
IL The objection that the statute name
% therein the first members of the Cit
D. Council: that it constitutes County Off
pc GERS eE-uificiO city officers: that it divert
~ fines from the school fund: that it is
special law, are all answered adversely
De stock, IL New. 12S.
&c A ju'g nent will be entered dismissin
e. the information and taxing the costs
We relator.
a We concur: BoNNIFIELD. J.
81 MASSEY, J.
of Filed February %, 1898.
Mt. EUGENE HOWELL,
Secretary Of State and ex-otficio Clerk
zee the Supreme Court.
to Filed with printer for publication Fe
or ruary "a, 1895. Eugene Howell.