The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1901-04-05
The COUNTY SEAT QUESTION.

THE COUNTY SEAT QUESTION.
THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION
IN THE MATTER.
fn the Supreme Court Of MIssouri. In Banc.
October Term. 1901.
state ex rel. y. y. Dsyis. ~ 81 j
>. Henry white, e.. al..
Respondents.
OriginsI Mandsmus.
Al the general election In november. 1890,
proposition tn remove the county seat
from DanviiIe TO Montgomery City was
submitted to the voters OF Montgomery
County. At that election there were 4ocs
votes cast Tor the candidates for national
and atate officers. 2iii vot-s cast In favor of
the removal of the county seat and 49,
sgsipst that proposition.
In due time the county court canvassed
the vote and declared the proposition fe re-
move carried. sppointed commissioners who
selected the sIte. which was duly sppoved.
q derd 10 the same was made out and ac-
cepted. and the county court assipg.d
rooms In the building for the county Of.
aeers respectively.
The object Of this suit 10 TO require the
county court to snnui its proceedings IN
this matter. declares the proposition To re-
move not carried and require the respond.
snts composing the county court TO retain
the county seat at Danvile. There IL no
disruic ~ TO tho facts.
From the record I, appears that more
than two thirds Of those who voted on the
proposition TO remove voted In favor of II.
but II does not appear that two thirds Of
the legal voters Of the county voted for the
removal. The sole question for our con.
4 alteration IL did the vote authorize the re-
moval.
The language OF the statute is; ''If u
shall appear by such election that two
thirds Of the legal voters OF said county are
m favor Of the removal Of the county seat
Of such county. thea the county court shall
appoint i've commissioners To select site
whereon to locate the seat Of Justice. III.
y. iso0 See. 40.
This sectlon appeared In the General
Statutes of lass. y. 2s3. except that for ''ie'
Rsj votcrs- Ne II now IL. II wa. illegally reg.
istcred voters"
At thnt time the law required registration
as n prerequisite TO the right TO vote. In
1870 the genera, requirement Of registration
having been eliminated this statute wa'
revised Into the form IN which We now
have II. specifying only illegal voters oi
said county :"
The principle involved In this case has
several times received the consideration ol
this court. As early m 1884 n similar quest
lou arose on the construction OF an act oI
isa7. which authorised the city rfsi. Loui'
+ to license persons to Keep open refreshmenl
booths on sunday "whenryer u majorit,
Of the legal voters" should authorize u
The proposition bas hesn srbn,iiisd a
an election when city officers were elected
and at which more than 1900 votes hat
been cast for candidates Tor city ofiicr'
ba35 votes were tor and 2e0i against th'
proposition. The court held that the prop
er construction Of the statute required
majority ''of ali the legal voters OF the city
and not merely those voting on the propo
/ sition. and the license 10 keep the establish
, mrnt open on sunday stiemp cd to b.
granted by the city TO defendant founded
ou the assumption thnt the proposition hat
carried. was invalid. State V winkslmeie
i. 10 Mo. lot. Very shortly afterwards
similar case came before ibe court wherein
the defendant claimed TO hold n license o
like character based on the same election
and II was held that his license was valid
! State v Binder. ~ Mo. t5O But In the las
. named case the record did not show ho'
; man, votes had been cast Tor the candidate
-, for Office. Il only showed the vote ON III
proposition. The court therefore. unles
Il had taken cognizancc Of fact outside th
record In the case before II. had no inior
\ nation except M to the vote on the propt
r sItion. Iu the opinion Il IL said;
:, IAN election was held. nc, ordlngly. o
the day named. the result OF which as WI
II appeared by the rsturns Of the city regi
\ Ter Ia certified copy NJ which was given
2 evIdcnee) thst the whole number Of vote
;, c,s, at said election was seven thousand sn
= eighty i've. Of which dve thousand and ilft
one were given In the Affirmative and tw
:, thousand aud thirty four IN the negative I
the proposition. This was the Who'll. cy
!, dence concerning the election and vote.
That ease. therefore. cannot he considere
a. at all In conflict with State V winke
meier.
=" In state OK rel V sutterheid. "a Mo, NJ
3gl. the court construed statute involved
the cnse now under consideration, as II WI
In 1859, when II required the assent OF ~
thirds OF all legally registered voters" a
!. the election IN that case aT votes for csnd
= y dates had been east. 2ii for aud 4. agaist r
- moving the county seat. II was also show
y that there were r9i names on the reglstr
tion list at that time. At that time the co
i, stltution ordained that 1.-The General A
q sembly shall vote In favor Of such removal
~ The court said: THE words do not Imp