The news & observer., 1905-11-05
WHO CAN CALL AN ELECTION?

The too brief account of the hear
ing of the mandamus by Whlch the
For Saloon crowd seeks to have an
election on that question in Raleigh
did not give full statement OF the
question that is now before the Su-
preme Court for the construction OF
the Watts law. 1t is a matter in which
every town is or may be interested
and the Board of Aldermen of Raj
eigh, who have conscientiously dis
charged their duty, desire nothing but
to have the Supreme Court to con-
strue the statute. 1t is to be regret
ted that, when the case was first pro-
sented to Judge Justice, the two con-
tentions that are favorable to the
temperance view were not pressed, AMI
that counsel seem to have agreed not
to argue there the contention that the
Board of Aldermen erred when they
undertook to revise the registration
books. Happily in the Supreme Court
Mr.. Richard Battle, who appeared for
the CITY, and Mr.. w. n. Jones, the
leader of the temperance forces in
Raleigh who appeared also for the
defendants at the request of Mr.. Bat
tie and with the consent of City At
torney Snow, presented the record in
such manner that all the matters
raised in the record are before the
Supreme Court, so that when it comes
to render it's decision, it will con-
slider all the phases of the case and
interpret the statute broadly, unfet-
tered by any technical or narrowing
agreements that prevent getting at
the true meaning, of the Legislature
That statute has never been construed
and there are three views of the mat
ter that are before the court:
/. The Board of Aldermen's only
duty was to count the number of reg
istered voters on the registration
books and call an election if one-third
of the names on the books signed
petition for an election. The For
Saloon" crowd lacked fifty-siX names
of having one-third of the registered
voters in Raleigh. and if this con-
tention is correct, no election can be
called and no mandamus can issue.
Such lawyers as ex-Chief Justice
Shepherd, Mr.. James H. Pou, County
Attorney Herbert E. Norris hold that
the board was in error when it under
took in September to purge the books
that had not been purged by the reg
istrars at the last municipal election.
The board called in the registrars,
who served in the municipal election,
and secured their assistance in purg-
ing the list. If the books ought to
have been purged at all, they ought
to have been purged in May, and the
Board of Aldermen and the registrars
had no right in September to touch
those books. Their only duty was to
ascertain that there were 1926 names
on the books at 1.-The preceding muni-
cipal election" and as the petition
contained only 543 of such register
ed voters''-56 too few--to decline
to call the election. But, acting under
the advice of counsel, they did purge
the books, and after this illegal purg-
ing of 25S names, there was ma
iority of twenty names on the regis
tration books in favor of an election.
If that is right and a man can petition
who cannot vote in the election, then
the mandamus will be granted
2. The second contention is that, if
the board had a right to purge the
books it had also the right to purge
the petition and could not permit any
man to petition and order an election
in which he could not vote If the cleo
ton was called After deducting the
names of the petitioners who could
not vote in the election If called, it
was found that the petitioners lacked
sixteen votes of enough to call the
election That contention is support
ed by such lawyers as Hon. r. II. Bat
tie, Judge Womack, Mr.. r. n. Simms
and others.
3. The third contention is that the
board must revise the list of names
registered for the last municipal cleo
ton, and after purging the l1St they
must order the election if one-third of
the remaining names petition for 1t,
even if it is shown that the petitioners
could not vote if the election is called.
Those who take this position argue
that this is the plain meaning or the
statute. Such lawyers as Col. ArgO,
Mr.. w. B. Snow and Mr.. w. B. Jones
contend for this construction, and in
the Superior court, Judge Justice took
that view.
In the Supreme Court, Col. Argo
made a brilliant speech in behalf of
the contention relied upon by the For
Saloon" petitioners, and Mr.. Jones
gave strong points for that conten-