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

y y
constitution provided Whenever a ma
10 ity OF the voters Of such county at
my general election, shall so determine.
The court held. N does not mean a
majority Of those voting on the question
TO be submitted, but a majority Of all the
,egai Voters uf he county In People V.
Tiant. the hngLage Of the constitution
under consideration was majority OF .
he voters He'd that majority OF the
votes cast on the qufs ion was insufficient. o.
n Stebbins v. Judge, the statute forbade
The incurrcnce Of bonded indebtedness
'ulless the qualified voters Of said city. |
voting IN their respective wards, shail |
nave authorized the issuing Of said bonds |
by a majority Of their votes cast at any |
regular election or at a special election .
called for the purpose OF voting upon
such question The vote In que stion
was taken at q regular election. Held
tnat the decision WIS determnable by a
majority Of the votes cast upon the ques-
/ don. Ia Bayard v. I<iinge the words Of
| the constitution under examination were
| majority Of such electors. The couri
decided that majority Of those voting on
the question was not sufficient. In Sling
erland vs.. Norton and in Smith vs. Board
7 Il was held that the whole number voting
At an election must be determined from
/ the poll lists not from the return OF the
I votes counted as effective The language
\ Dl the constitution under consideration In
/ state vs.. Powell was "A majority Of the
/ qualified electors voting II was held
| that the proposed constitutional amend
ment could only be adopted by a majority
/ )f those voting at the same time for any
: purpose III state vs.. Minkti liner tie
! language OF he statute was "a majority
! u the legal voters More than 13.O0Y
I voters participated IN the election: 5.Q35
/ favored and 2.0C1 opposed the adoption
/ of the question submitted The court
| said 1T IL evident that the vote OF 5000
I Out OF 1900 voters Is not the vote of a
| majority, and under the act quoted no
authority was given the city In State
vs. BdbcOck, the constitution provided
Z that proposed amendments shall be pub
iished for three months proceeding the
D "a II IA
! lives. and II majority OF
the electors voting AT such election
ADOPT eie Held, tnat a majority OF
those voting on the amendment was in
SUFFICIENT In state vs.. Bechel the con-
itutiOn provided: No such general law
shall be passed by the legislature, grant
ing the right to construct and operate a
street abroad within any city. town, or
Incorporated village. without first re-
quiring the consent of a majority Of the
electors thereof The question Of having
I, street railroad was submitted at a gem
erll city election at which S,ll6 voters
participated, Of whom 1860 voted for and
MAO against the railroad. The cou {
lWid: II Is impossible for us. by any
sNstcm OF logical reasoning. to say that
tue election held in the city Of Omaha on
ths 90 day OF May 1881 WAS other than
one election. That being the
case, the consent Of ma
iority OF the electors was not given In
STATE vs.. Foraker the constitutional pro-
vision was that a proposed amendment
should he published for six months pre-
cediig the next election for senators and
Representatives, at which time tne same
shall DE submitted To the electors. =
and u majo ity Of the clcc Ors voting
az surh election shall adopt, etc. Held,
thHt d majority Of those tuting on the
amendment was insufficient There are
many other cases that are in harmony
with our conclusions. but In which the
consu utlonal or statutory provision un-
der considcration was found. az in our
own case of city OF South Bend VS.. Lew
Is, to condition the adoption of q partic-
4al II lie .taaf
majority Of tine votes cast for and against
lt;. Citing cases ON Georgia Idaho,
Illinois Kansas Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Nebraska. New York North
Carolina North DakO a, Oregon, 'rennes-
see. West Virginia Wisconsin, United
states Supreme court, and Federal court }
, In the great majority of these the Jrin-
ciples that control us in our holding in
, the present case are distinctly recog-
, nlzed. For example In re county seat
OF Linn county Cl5 kas. 500). the phrase
! "A majority cf the electors Of the county
I was considered IN connection with the re-
/ | turns OF special election at which the
4 TO be voted upon. Mr. Justice Brewer
, speaking for thu court. said We do not
doubt the rest ictug power Of the consti-
tutional poTvision; and whneever. by any
f the ordinary oN prescribed means OF
/ ascertaining the fact il appears that a
majority Of the electors have not con
sented 10 the change no change can be
more questions are submitted at the same
electicr and more votes are cast up,l,
, one question than upon another,
/ the highest number of votes cast upon
any one question is ClearY evidence OF
, the number Of votes. which may not. I'm
, view of any such constitutional restric-
tion as above quoted be- dsregarded In
. any contest arising as to 'he decision OF
the other questions There may be a few
cases that cannot be reconoYed with the
great weight OF the decided law but they
probably all belong to the claAS OF which
Gillespie v Palmer go Wis. SAW may be
aSen as illustrative
Among the authorities to which we are
referred by the defendant, are ,everal
which are cited IN the Indiana cas-, Just
, / ,t'-sted and are clearly distinguish0ble
from the principle Involved in the e,'so
/, at bar as the discussion contained In that
case shows
I One OF the first cases p esented to na
for our consideration b. counsel for de-
fendant in their brief is the case OF
Gillespie vs. Palmer. et al, 20 Wis. 574
which Is the same case mentioned in the
closing paragraph OF the quotation above
giveI That was case which grew out
OF 2 submission OF an amendment TO the
con~liutlon OF the state OF Wisconsin
under which IL was intended 20 extend
the privilege of the franchise TO oolored
persons. The provision Of the cohstitu-
ton providing 70 its amendment re-
CURED the proposition to be submitted
/ 10 the vote OF the people at a general
: election, and approved by a majority of
/ an the votes cast az such election. - The
! court held that this language was sus-
amendment would become law when IL
had been approved by a majority OF the
votes cast upon that subject aud couu-
sci for defendant argue from this that
/ this would necessarily be constituting this
language TO mean that only those votes
counted were In fact cast upon that sub
1ect, This decision Is against the weight
| f authority In the United States and
! was subsequently iticised in the case of
Sawyer VS.. Dodge County Mutual lnsur-
ance company. 81 Wis 503-5Oi. where
tho court stated that II had been sub
lcctcd TO the criticism that the court de-
{ ciced IL In accordance with ''the logic of
war rather than the "lCg.e of the law. y
and In later ease. Bound vs.. the Wis
c1nsin Central RAILROAD company Is Wis,
5i3, Mr.. Chief Jutslec Ryan. speaking OF
the decision, then being rendered Is the
court and not agreeing on one p oposition
decided said
II dcplofe the decision on this point;
, not Het ely because think u Wrung but
because ] am apprehCnsiNe that IL viii be
cilsscd vi h such eases al Gillespie Vs.
Palmer, 20 Wis, 5ii, which nave long
hcen made TeprOacn 10 tRa court, as
judgments proceeding upon policy rather
man principle.
II will thus be secu that this authority
u not oyerruleu Is at least 10 somc eNtcat
uiscicdted BY the sup emc cOert OF the
state where rendered n can hardly be
said TO be in point anyhow.
lhp next case 20 WlIrn cOulSrf directs