Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1906-10-31
VOTING MACHINES WILL BE USED.
Continued from first page


Continued from first page
made without jurisdiction, of course,
the right Of CCrtiOrari is not available
to correct mere Irregularities or er-
rors III the proceedings of the lower
court. it may be that illegality of
action, where the court has jurisdic
ton, may sometimes be tested by
certiorari. and in such a case, the
want of plain, speedy and adequate
remedy by appeal may be important.
But where the acti n complained of
is excess of the jurisdiction of the
court. it is doubtful whether the
remedy by appeal is ever plain, speedy
and adequate Certainly, in this case,
all appeal would neither have been
speedy, nor adequate, for it would
have postponed any test OF the validity
of the order prohibiting the use of
voting machines at the November
election of this year until long after
the election had been held. In a case
involving an injunction to test the
title to an Office, when the term of
office would probably expire before
the appeal could be heard ana de-
cided, this pertinent language was
used in State Elk Rel Mcaffrey V
Alec, 1872 Mo-, 1866. A. l.. r. A. 1893,
with reference TO writ of prohibi
ton, serving the same purpose, as
we understand it, that is served by
the writ of certiorari under our pro-
cedure.
II is also contended by learned
counsel that relators had their remedy
by motion TO dissolve, and by appeal
on final Judgment Prohibition is an
extraordinary remedy, and will not
lie where IA party claiming it has adj
equate remedy by ordinary means.
But the ordinary means that will de-
feat the application for this extraordi
nary writ, must be sufficient to afford
the relief the case demands. If the
REALTORS should await to follow the
course pointed out by their adyer
saries, it would, in all probability,
be a year before their appeal could
be heard and decided, aud it would
be perhaps two years, if the cause
took its regular course without adj
vancement, both in the trial and ap-
pellate courts In our own cases, we
find nothing to indicate that an APP
peal is u speedy and adequate remedy
where the question is as to want of
jurisdiction to make the order COM
fable inference from those cases
where the question of the adequacy of
the remedy by appeal has been consi-
dered, that such remedy would not
preclude resort TO certiorari, if the
jurisdiction of the subject matter
were the question involved. See,
State v. Schmidt, 50 Iowa. 566;
Abney " Clark, 81 Iowa, 1871
|
We are clear that in this case at
least, the remedy by appeal, to which
plaintiff might have resorted, was not
such a speedy and adequate remedy as
TO preclude his resort to this proceed
ing by certiorari.
On the merits of the case, as made
by the return to the writ, the position
strongly relied upon for the plaintiff
is, that the lower court has no power
or authority under the allegations of
the petition for injunction, TO inter
fere with the use of the voting ma
chimes at the November election. 1906,
as provided for by the Board of Super
visors. Aud TO this broad proposition
we shall now direct our attention,
without attempting to follow the
course of argument MAPPED out by
counsel on either side.
The right TO vote is a political and
not Il civil right, and court of equ-
ty will not exercise it's extraordinary
power of injunction to protect mere
political right as distinct from civil
right. The plaintiff in the injunction
case, as a tax payer, could no doubt
have relief by injunction, to prevent
the Board of Supervisors and the
County Auditor,
defendants III that action, from at
tempting TO carry cut contract
which would impose an unlawful in
debtedness upon the county; but as
tax payer, he had no interest in the
question whether or not the November
election in the county should be held
by means of voting machines and AS "A