The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-11-16

lftttl iH not Wlinln the tthilte unless I
VI lin tho Intention. Perr1 county '.
Jefferson county. "a m. 2i4} Peo7le "
hnduHn ~ III 22t; Andeis llfv. Chicago, I
Iunngton & quincy Railrpad Co. ii7
statute should be construed together in
the light OF the general objects and pur-
poses OF the enactment and 80 as 10
give effect 10 the main intelt, although
particular provisions are thus construed
nor according TO their literal reading.
| ghin " Harding % H.. 77. Wabash. st.
Louis & Pacific Railway Go. v. Binkert,
/ i0G ID. 29Sl The intention Is to be
/ glthered from the necessity or Veason
~ the enactment and the me ming of
words enlarged or restricted according 70
( the trle intent tCastner v Walrod SO
/ ~. l7li Curse v Alden. % ID. 23i
| That which Is implied Is as much a part
| Of the statute as that which is expressed.
| potters Dwarris. las: United States v
| Babbitt, Black. 15). When the literal
| enforcement Of a statute would result in
| great Inconvenience ana cause great in
! Justice ana lead to consequences which
/ aoe absurd md which the legislature
| could NOT have contemplated the courts
| are bound 10 presume That such conse-
| uuonces were not intended. ana adopt "a
| construction which will promote the ends
OF Justice and avoid the JbsurdltY. Bryan
| W Buckmnster Brccse. los; People V.
| Mafshall ] CHM 6f2
Moreover. the statute provides that a
ballot shall not be counted where IL bears
| ANY distinguishing mark or on which any
| writing appears. The auostlon may well
arise. when IN order to render a ballot
Invalid. shall such mark or writing APP
aear, Clearly ia our Judgment prior
70 the time q is taken ~ to be counted
bs the officials. II such marx or writing
does not so appear then the ballot should
be counted. Ia the case at bar we have
i 20 light on this subject that Is the evil
dence does not disclose whether these
numbers were placed on the ballots prior
to being deposited In the ballot boxes or
after having been taken therefrom ard
IN the course Of the canvass. II in the
latter case we believe tnere could he
no doubt on the subject N Ia the forme
we hold In view OF the faci that the mum.
bers were made upon the i67 ballots III 4
VOWED herein we're not made by the voter
being totui absence OF evidence show
ing that they were made either prior tc
being deposited IN The boxes or with the
electors or FOR the purpose Of distinguish
lng them, tue same should be counted as
cast
We do not mean to pass upon in thls
| case for tho cason that we need not.
what tnc effect would be on the ballot
had thc evidence shown that the voter
was aware OF tho fact knew and saw
without protest, the number being placed
upon his ballot prior 20 It's being de-
posted In the box by the election OH .
cials. IN 4 later case from the Supreme
Court of Nevada the case of Sweeney
! y. Hiul, AZ Pac.. 1896. the case OF Buckner
Z LNnip, supra, WIS ed and distin-
= guishcd, That case was one wherein
the voters Of one precinct were delivered
the ballots with both the stub and the
numbc thereon. and in this condition
cast them. The law rcqulfed the ballot
Z To- he separated from the stub on being
ldeliNercd to the voter and the Supreme
[ Court held in contest that the voter
: knowing TINS and being a party to the
! Identification of his own ballot cast one
} which was distinguished and declined Il
, count the same.
5 Thic conclusion on our pant brings us
To the most serious question in the cas-,
and upon the solution OF which we have
. devoted much effort and on which vii
I depend whether the governors oclA-
, nation fixing the county scat OF Mcintosh
! county at ChecOtnh viii be sustained and
become final. or whether another election
] shah be called with Chccotah and Eufaula
constitution.
$ II the law requires the admiration. II
. conpu ing the whole number on which
{ | the majority Is 10 be computed, Of Tho
. leighty-scven ballots found BY the referes
2 60 be mutlated. Checotah having received
Y 1868 votes, would have a majority of th'
. | votes east. IT, however, we hold that III,
I, term woes east prope ~ Includes no
= | only the votes count ed, but also the bal
lots cast by the electors where valid an,
free from fraud and which manifest an
bonest effort on the part OF the voter
1 | to participant m the elec ion hut which
We're so M ltilated that they We're uum-
| teiligible and for this reason could not
z be counted for either place, then Che
iJority
me provisions for locating and re.
! ties OF the state. are contained In articl,
. va Of the constitution, section thereof
| tsectlou 32S Bunns ed, is as follows.
The towns herein named as county
Z beats shall be and remain the county
} I seats OF their respective counties unit
, changed by vote. OF the qualified electors
, Paragraph b. Of said section being sec.
lion 3SS Of Bunns Constitution, pro-
vides
4. 'If majority Of all the votes cast
n fta uf fflf nj q ala 40.
I tion SHAH be In favor OF any toSn, sucl
I | own shall thereafter be the county seat
but II lore than two town
/ are voted for and no town receive IN,
, lfequisite proportion OF all the votes cast
then all names OF towns voted for ON saic
ballot except tile two receiving III,
TeSped reST hsmpsr o ana notes sedand sna eee o.
Iiion at which only two towns whicl
I lfeceived the grcatest number II t,ts,
. east az the first election shan ho Votec
B Now the question which presents igei
I under this is does the phrase vote,
g least mean votes cast and counted ol
luQes II mean ballots cast or votes cas1
= both counted and not counted because OF
E humiliation. IL is the contention OF coun'
{ lsel for defendant that the foi neg Is th'
P reconstruction TO which this language is
. susceptible, and counsel for ptiintim inss
Ithat tt Is open to the latter CuNSi uictior
E only, dne 1heN have been 'iiisent AM
vigorous Ia presenting dinei Aat views
g f'rhc Hdiudcatioas a.. neither the terri
p liorial supreme court. or OF our own court
afford us ary light cr the srhf"'t and u
ias bee. founa a. essay by all paTtics
= ltn ~ -nTl tu iuc desc ans OF ut Aer courts
E for assistance in dvtrrn nng the f.atci
b lconstruction Of this language
/, There are almost a countless number
! lof opinions OF the different courts ir
lcascs where constitutional and other pro
Z iNisions have been submitted for the con
deration of the electors OF state or
subdivision thereof, the decision OF whicl
turned on the law relating q he mum
: / her OF votes which the proposition musi
secure IN order TO become a law whethei
by majority OF the voters voting at th1
election Of whether by merely major
ity OF the voters voting upon the prOpo-
sition presented. They win not. however
sslst as much in this controversy for II
must be decided upon the language Of oui
constitution but as some Of the casas
relied on by defendant are OF this class
we deem Il proper 70 discuss the leading
ones OF those cited for the purpose OF
distinguishing them from the proposluor
here presented.
one OF the best considered Of these
cases Is that OF Ia re DennF, found III
the 69th n. L. Qnu.) $50. That was a
case in which an amendment 60 he con.
stitution was submitted TO the voters OF
Indiana, the constitution providing that
upon the submission TO the electors OF