The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-13


 slons. conscious of the general policy Of the law in dealing with elections under statutory authority and being so. conscious, they wrote in commanding terms prescribing the form of the bal lot and the mode for expressing the voters choice. This Is we think proof conclusive that the intent was to for stall In elections for the issuance of such bonds any possibility of the ap- plication thereto of the rule that modes in election statutes must yield to the broader policy of an entertainment. with reasonable certainty. of the popu- lar will. If this Is not true, what was the occasion to prescribe at all the form of the public ballot and the me- thod of choice.
 The paramount conditions precedent of the valid issuance of such bonds. declared in the form of an imperative prohibition. is that a majority of the qualified voters of the interested ter- ritory. voting on the proposition, shall vote therefor. Not content with this unqualified restriction upon the issu- ance of the bonds the writers of the instrument In empinisis of the pur- pose to guard such issuance of bonds against improvidences in any form the form of the ballot and the method whereby the voter should express his choice are plainly provided for. In so doing the constitution makers give the highest evidence of the importance of these two prescriptions. They evil dence thereby the conclusion. binding upon all within its sphere that q general requirement.. for majority vote by ballot was not sufficient. but that the two essentials to the ascer- tainnent of the choice concerned. viz, the ballot to be used and the method of expressing the voters choice thereon should be particularly required and prescribed by the instrument Itself. thus clearly negativing an intention to repose any discretion anywhere in re- spect Of the two essentials"
 For these reasons the court declar- ed the bond issues invalid and revers- ed so much of the lower courts deci- sion as was contrary to this concIu- sion.
 An interesting part of the discus- sion in the opinion was the answer to the objection that voting for water works and electric lights as a single proposition was illegal. It was declared that this blending of the issues nisled the voters and gave them no opportu- nity to vote perhaps for one and re- 1ect the other.
 The Supreme Court did not agree with the citizens in this contention. It was considered that the subjects were not incougruous but somewhat similar and that their being was cognate to one common agency, power. Waterworks and electric lights can both derive their power from steam engine, for fn- stance. and the enterprises often go together. An example of incongruous propositions was cited as blending of school buildings and bridges. These were entirely separable,
 Rather than defeat the election on a combination like water works and cleo trio lights on q single ballot, the court held that the citizen desiring one and not desiring the other should have voted negatively on the whole busi- ness.
 Whole List of Opinions.
 Other opinions put out yesterday were as follows:
 TYSON. c. J.
 James w Woodruff vs. N B. Hall, ct als, appeal from Limestone Circuit: af. firmed.
 DOWDELLs J.
 Anna v. Crawford. dmrx. etc, vs. Annie O. Engrarn, as Executrix, ct al, appeal from Barbour chancery Court; affirmed.
 Lee wertheimer as Admr vs. Ella Ridgeway ct al. appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit Court; appeal dismissed.
 Union Iron Works Company vs. Un- ion Naval Stores Company ct al. appeal from Monroe Circuit Court; affirmed. ANDERSON, I.
 James D. Cochran vs. George Kim brouEh, appeal from Greene Circuit Court; affirmed.
 c. c. Miles ys. Alex M. siedge, ap-